Skip to main content

tv   Full Board of Supervisors 111516  SFGTV  December 2, 2016 2:00am-6:31am PST

2:00 am
the press may have we'll be outside in the hallway for you. december te >> good afternoon, everyone and welcome to the tuesday, november 15, 2016, meeting of the san francisco board of supervisors mr. clerk call the roll. >> thank you madam president
2:01 am
supervisor avalos supervisor president london breed supervisor campos supervisor cowen supervisor farrell supervisor kim supervisor mar not present supervisor peskin supervisor tang supervisor wiener supervisor wiener not present supervisor yee, supervisor yee not present madam president we have quorum. >> thank you ladies and gentlemen, please join us of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> thank you, madam clerk any communications. >> yes. madam president we're in resident of two communications the first from
2:02 am
supervisor wiener and supervisor yee dated november 1st and 14 con seismically both supervisors will be absent and requests the board excuse them from the meeting and okay. colleagues a motion to excuse supervisor wiener and supervisor yee move forward by supervisor peskin and seconded by supervisor farrell without objection, without objection supervisor yee and supervisor wiener are excused all right. colleagues, any changes to the october 4, 2016, board meeting minutes seeing none, a motion moved by supervisor mar and seconded by supervisor peskin colleagues without objection without objection those meeting minutes pass after public comment. >> madam clerk call the first item the special ordinance the mayors appearance before the board the honorable mayor edwin lee no
2:03 am
questions submitted from supervisors from the even districts any address the board up to 5 minutes. >> mr. mayor the floor is yours. >> good afternoon, supervisors and members of the public i want to say thank you all. participating at the unite gatherings now more than ever the people of san francisco wants to be united in a city that paves the way for better policy and outcomes the federal election clarified much we agree on in to no more than ever needs to stand for citizens and our values to spare no questions this week i want to extend a couple priorities voter and residents are clear about homelessness and transportation a week ago san francisco folks
2:04 am
went to the poll and want us to continue to work on the issues but within the clear escape of the city and county budget the loss of anticipated revenues from prop k has left the city's balanced budget impacted and the set aside so for homelessness and transportation a created by prop j which passed its by 66 percent of the vote will not take effect as you may know i sent a letter to supervisor president london breed and the corral eliminating those two set aside, however, there is still have services for the neediest san franciscans that must continue you as much as shelter and navigation centers outreach and engagement services for people living on the streets and increased housing opportunity for the homeless we also patio need to look at street safety to make sure we are keeping the promises on
2:05 am
vision zero despite the lack of prop k make sure that muni didn't get rolled back we keep on bicycle safety i hope to work with you to bring the budget by identifying additional revenue for the critical investments related to homelessness and transportation i know many people are shaej by the result of the federal election he understand those feels completely i'm worried about what might happy to the city and the funding in the new year, however, this makes me even more important for us to come together to ma'am, policy decisions to lead our city those are issues we cannot afford to ignore and voters don't want us to ignore so supervisors i'm asking for all your help in this effort for your ideas your
2:06 am
priorities as partnership to get it done and help to strengthen ourselves at the same time right now we can't afford competing interests and unhealthy discourse to issues that matter to san franciscans when there is potential difficult battles ahead san franciscans need us to push this city forward we have an opportunity to show the - that the difference strong cities what make but to do so we must remain strong and must also remind ourselves of the echo we heard no >> yes. respond when we work together we can accomplish much more thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. mayor and madam clerk read do consent. >> items 20 through 21 are.
2:07 am
>> seeing no other names on the roster, madam clerk please call the roll. >> on the consent calendar supervisor kim supervisor mar supervisor peskin supervisor tang supervisor avalos supervisor breed supervisor campos supervisor cowen supervisor farrell there are 9 i's. >> those items are finally passes on the first reading and douptsd unanimously next item, please. >> item 2 it through 26 items 2 it through 26 are the resolutions of intention to establish infrastructure financing district one and the project areas financing
2:08 am
instruction acquisition on treasure island and yerba buena gardens to provide nose and call for a public hearing added 3:00 p.m. on the be formation of the project areas. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you supervisor president london breed we're back to discussing the treasure island infrastructure financing district i also want to recognize that the treasure island development authority director is - in the audience i believe and i also see our public finance officer and see kate hartley maybe in the audience oh, yes, sir. kate hartley from mohcd to do a presentation a few weeks ago we were concerned about some of the gaps in the affordable housing funding and market-rate funding that we've seen given your commitment to the building 27
2:09 am
and a half percent affordable housing on the island he it being a big piece of why question had move forward unanimously with this development project on the island several things have not workout in the last couple of years with the increasing of construction costs as well as the stated overturning our redevelopment we use as we were depending upon using it more affordable housing and many questions came up from the board of supervisors rightly so how we plan to build the commitments we've made to the public with the first two affordable housing parcels calendar to be available for development in 2018 we want to make sure those projects move forward as soon as those paralyze are available and have the funding sources in order to put that together. i nevertheless to say, since
2:10 am
you're here come up first i'll not be the only one to ask questions and rebecca is here >> good afternoon, supervisors nadia the officer of public finance yesterday we calculated a memorandum to 9 last questions when this item was heard and what had we're trying to do it respond to the affordable housing gap i think we're trying to clarify this agreement or d da was adopted no 2011 and what is before you is obligation of the city to finance those districts more specifically the infrastructure financing and revitalization district is one of the community facilities to deliver on the improvements on the island the development which will include 9 thousand units
2:11 am
and 5 thousand plus commercial real estate and three hundred open space up to nine hundred hotels in other for the development to occur and to develop on housing committed which results in 27 point percent of the units we required to fund this district - and to deliver on the improvements what we also have the item before you the former of the first set of several legislated actions that allows us to put in place a spell assessment on the very well parcels for the infrastructure expenses as well as an infrastructure financing district that will fund infrastructure on the island the cd and tida is required to deliver on affordable housing and the gaps we have been able
2:12 am
to identify is $382 million to construct the one thousand 8 hundred and 64 unit what we should clarify is that the gap is a result of additional units of one and 84 housing units and ass also a as a result of increased costs and loss in federal and state funding the supervisor clarified the largest allocation 25.3 percent of one percent is no longer available so what we're asking that the board approve that what the documents in front of you a allows for a delivery of up to one thousand plus units and including inclusionary units on the island that gets us to 65 percent of the housing units
2:13 am
we we've tried to identify the potential funding up to one thousand and 9 hundred plus units but what that we need to clarify those need for the - it requires state action to reinstate it as well as some local funding resources and in addition by moving this forward you able to secure parcels up to 20 that will allow the city to deliver the one thousand 8 hundred and 64 units as required to but in addition allows for capacity to do more on the remaining parcels i want to emphasize the plan before you a 15 to 20 development the gap is identifying that but what it does is what we've been trying to do from a prudent
2:14 am
stand point to close the gap between 15 and 20 units beyond the potential to generate more enough revenues to deliver on the housing we've been trying to focus on the first 10 to 20 years more specifically the mayor's office of housing that also proposing to commit through 2026 of units and if you tooth the share and potential extension of the district the district plan that was the item before you you see a 40 year term if we're able to increase this by an additional 5 years we think that is an easy request to make to the state because they have two other competing
2:15 am
ifd laws with 45 years in addition i wanted to clarify this is an obligation of the city and this allows us to set the first of many steps we'll be in front of the board of supervisors for the next step of documents introduced to form the district and the voted of public hearings at a future date and all the debts will come before this board and more specifically made clarifications in the infrastructure financing plan that also allows for in the event the city will sure additional revenues meaning the state share only be available and applied to housing and what that means is that by board action it would be a value dated
2:16 am
without going back to the resident doing everything we can to make that document as pursuant as possible hoping that today, we can get the approval from the board of supervisors and with a commitment to come back and brief you as we make progress on the financing solutions i want to note that the erupt share it takes time so that will be something we'll have to do over a year or so but likely to indulge staff to continue to work on this and for them as we make progress and some of the general fund on table 3 of the memo require continued interaction with the board and mayor in terms of revenues available for housing i also want to note that there is also a fiscal year analysis in the infrastructure financing
2:17 am
plan that identifies all the revenues and expenditures on the island and based on what we've been able to projection it is revenue positive to the general fund so once the development is done after the 20th most of those revenues will flow to the general fund and the city can apply those i should remind folks we're going to to deliver the 2000 plus unit on the - and revenues on the island will be made available over a longer than period of time but not 20th so what we're passing before you and taking into account the potential sources gives us 90 percent of the revenue. >> to clarify on some of the points and supervisor peskin is on the roster we have a net funding gap of roughly one and
2:18 am
$8 million of which of 40 million the mayor's office of economic workforce development has today made a commitment we'll make that amendment towards that gap the remaining amount is $38 million is could come through extending the five for 5 years and through the board action today we can clarify the remaining funds be used more affordable housing did i hear you correctly. >> it's at committee tomorrow. >> to the committee tomorrow. >> the final chunk the greatest concern 200 and $6 million i know there is a hope that we may from - through the state be permitted to call back the e ratify share we were unsuccessful serve years ago in
2:19 am
sacramento we tried then through legislation there with i believe america's cup to grab a portion of e rap share wisp unsuccessful in getting treasure island included that legislation so the hope is that things will change in sacramento with the governor and that there's a hope that new leadership will allow us to call that back and up think that is a little bit tenuous we've seen in sacramento i have concerns about that hope so my question and maybe not a question to you ms. faye i see that mr. beck is in the room could you please explain the trigger throughout the d da what will occur if we're not able to fill the gap on affordable housing would it pause certain elements the development what reassurance
2:20 am
does the board have if we going forward with approving ifd. >> we can go to director beck. >> the d da didn't include any provisions that cause the developers activity to be paused from the city were unable to keep pace with development of the affordable housing and it is a bit of a chicken and egg scenario we have a portion of the revenues for the affordable housing development come from the property tax derived from the development that does benefit the program for the larger development to keep to continue a pace as we
2:21 am
contain fund to close the gap i just wanted to highlight that the figures in table 3 don't currently include fund from the grant programs affordable housing in several communities or no place like home other sources we will pursue to help close the gap also t b d in the table is in any surplus revenues at the back end will accrue to the affordable housing construction after tida has been reimbursed for the construction costs there we don't currently have an estimate how much that might be but another potential fund to help us for the reimbursement of the city to continue the
2:22 am
affordable housing development and how much is that estimated at. >> we don't have a hard number but can be up to one hundred million dollars. >> and what are the largest state grant you've seen more affordable housing given here in san francisco. >> to the month recent in 2016 cycle of the affordable housing and sustainable grant program issued a total of 200 and $85 million in award over 25 projects the average award was in excess of $11.80 percent of all the funds awarded were more affordable housing component of those programs. >> uh-huh. >> we the have one award here to san francisco i apologize i don't know the exact number of the award that came to san francisco. >> uh-huh. >> unfortunately, because we
2:23 am
were not close enough to developing our affordable housing we were not able to include the affordable housing in the 2016 application but as we move forward we'll be able to pursue that in the 2017 cycle. >> uh-huh, uh-huh. >> so i think of that the one million dollar it the most pro tem on the back end remaining ifd funds the gap is large i worried about us depending on the state granted that average one million dollars over the next 4 years we're not i hope i'm wrong seeing any federal grant toward affordable housing i hope i'm wrong about that i know that some of us assume the prospects with diagram with the new administration since there are triggers in the development that will be paused if we don't
2:24 am
meet our each other obligation what geese in the worse case scenarios we're not able to backfill the 200 and $6 million gap we'll be able to fulfill our affordable housing obligation to the city. >> i think director alluded to the fact that the project as a whole is going to be generate significant positive contributions to the general fund through the ifd we're obtaining golden state warriors the increment but a positive. >> i guess that continues to answer my first question how you believe we've funded the affordable housing go up a fates the best case scenario i'm saying in all things go wrong sacramento new leadership in place is not amenable to san
2:25 am
francisco call back as the current governor we're not able to fulfill the 200 and $6 million gap we're in pieces maybe a one and $50 million gap what guarantee does the board have we'll complete our affordable housing any penalties? any you know - what will happen from the city didn't fulfill the obligation >> the city secures through the development agreements with the land and the entitlement rights to the 21 hundred plus unit and the land on which to develop that and in fact, we can develop those units 17 of the 20 parcels dedicated to us we're securing the development opportunity and the rights and through the immediately oiftsd resources we can fund two-thirds of that development the gap has been presented
2:26 am
didn't include any mohcd support any h f c support. >> i'm sorry i'm not trying to interrupt i know you're trying to paint how we'll fulfill the gap what if we don't fill the gap and all the market-rate housing get built and the affordable parcels that are deed to us they lie vacant we fulfill some of that but the market-rate get built we don't fulfill the affordable housing obligation we promised to the community and city in passing in development unanimously in 2011 what then happens. >> the city residences the opportunity and right to developing develop it not a question whether or not those will be developed but. >> i have questions about whether or not we'll develop it
2:27 am
i'll not be here in 20 or 40 years not sure what the next step of leadership will decide as their priorities i want more of a guarantee than the land is deed to us typically fulfill our affordable housing obligation. >> and i'm just wondering what else can we put in to guarantee the - >> because i'm how much as you are director beck we'll get much of the funding resources but feel it is our responsible and certainly as someone that has sponsored that development over and over again and saying we committing to high levels of affordable housing i'm not just depending on a positive optimistic outcome into the future but guarantee with the market-rate. >> i don't - the
2:28 am
redevelopment agreement didn't have triggers we stop or pause with the open agreements in the way the agreement was structured tmc hats the infrastructure to move forward in the city to have the obligation to delivery the affordable housing subject to 9 financial structure that was included isn't financing plan. >> okay. >> so the plan didn't include any conditions that will stop or reopen the terms of the agreement. >> if i may add supervisor another schufrn of the funding solution involves the local share participation what we've tried dpa make a commitment at that level but allow us opportunity to get a consensus how we should work with the board and the mayor to think
2:29 am
through strategic upstairs steps without over burdening the general fund in ways to secure the projects gated on the island to affordable housing so their opportunities - over the life of the approval process in the year or two what commitment made potentially achieved that will bring to the board as we may came. >> without the e rap share as a result which the development for example, has had those types of revenues to fund for the housing program makes it challenging what he was trying to say in effect what we're showing an outcome up to 20 years based on the developer developing through 2020 having identified fixed costs meaning
2:30 am
in depth service and 100 percent of the affordable housing. >> my understanding that is only $38 million; right? >> $38 million. >> - >> the 5 year exception and hope there will be left over funds on the back ended totals one plus millions is your honor, certain and that is the most optimistic if you know sacramento didn't allow us to call back e rap the most optimistic we're talking about one hundred maybe $90 million gap i don't expect over the two weeks our multiple agencies will come to the board we have a commitment to this gap we are 100 percent certain we'll fund i was not expecting that today, i guess i'm going to reframe that a little bit i want guarantees
2:31 am
so i need something on the line in order to moved whether bell fulfill our affordable housing obligation so that's not before us i want to think about that i don't want the development to move forward where all the market-rate development is - inform nothing it put on the line to make sure we fulfill the gap the 22 phillips affordable housing we fought for i understand we're in a. >> during the process that treasure island underwent it was a surprise as we were coming to our final approval we moved to the best case scenario and at the time, construction costs were lower and we were hopefully that the state will provide an exemption just so for treasure island to call back e rap we were not grand america's cup was
2:32 am
we were specifically left behind they don't support treasure island moving forward with the e rap call back so i don't see us getting that in this administration but in the future administration again a lot of uncertainties i'm happy to move forward with this level of uncertainty i see the commitment in the city to insure the affordable housing but like to see something put on the line a debris to make sure we're not building market-rate without the affordable housing so i see supervisor peskin i don't think there is going to be unless thoughts on the guarantees look like i'm going to allow other members of the board to comment. >> i've heard your message and we'll continue. >> mr. beck he had a question for you in light of is supervisor kim's comment you know one of the things we hear on a regular basis in the city why we can't build housing
2:33 am
has to do with with not having access to lands a place to build it commitments made cleaver for a significant amount of affordable housing on treasure island can you explain to me you know in light of the fact we do now have the land to build i know i guess promised in terms of one thousand units of affordable housing why are we not figuring a better way based on this agreement why is there not more thoughtful and collaboration with the mayor's office of housing or 09 resources that we have at our disposal to try to make sure this housing is built in a more timing manner. >> we have been working with the mayor's office of housing and kate hartley from the office so here today but with working with them and the other commitments currently
2:34 am
before the mayor's office we laid out a framework between 2018 when our first parcels are available and 2026 to fund the first development of 7 parcels with support from mohcd including in their next year budget including budget the predevelopment fund by mohcd for our first two parcels which will be available to us in 2018 for development that predevelopment work allows us to go forward and start the design process design and permitting process for those to buildings so we're working collaboratively with mohcd and on how to close the gap and the other thing as we move forward it opens the don't worry about as i mentioned to start as we have sites available to pursue funding sources that require
2:35 am
construction ready sites in order to be eligible for consideration we intend to pursue in 2017 from the affordable housing and the sustainability developments as well as suhr the h h p support for the first project which will be out the door a source of shares the veterans housing for the first project but securing that commitment requires us to be moving forward and having sites ready for construction. >> okay. this clearly is a length discussion and past 2:30 we have 32:30 accommodations i'll ask the colleagues to hold their questions or comments so we can recognize a number of individuals that we have here today to how shall so that they don't have to sit
2:36 am
through this lengthy confusion even if bureaucratic drama with that, i'll be one of the first to do a 3:30 accommodation today and so i'm going to aeric can t come forward to say honored by the board of supervisors welcome come forward to the podium please thank you for being here. colleagues i'm proud to recognize every single can introduce her with work with the cool valley fair as organizer for the pianist years hive tirelessly worked to unite the community and carry on the fingerprinting year tradition by bringing together local businesses and artists and schools and families the coal valley fair is a loved tradition i'm so happy to support that fair year after year without the
2:37 am
dedication of people like every single can it wouldn't be the same and in addition to organizing the coal valley fair contributed to the valley as an small business owner that operates two training studios to promote living and health and safety exercise exercise as as business owner the organer the coal valley fair and the wife and two children every single can is a thank you for stepping up and continuing to tradition and what makes us a great city our great community fairs that brings together so many members of the community since you join
2:38 am
together and celebrate what they don't see overtime as hard work you are making the magic happen and thank you for carrying on the tradition so this tradition so on behalf of the san francisco board of supervisors we commend you today. >> thank you for your service. >> thank you very much i want to thank everyone especially supervisor breed for helping fund the city use that are increasing us to run our local street fair we keep the street fair small intentionally a great, great part of community and very grateful so thank you.
2:39 am
>> (clapping.) >> next an accomodation if from supervisor avalos for rebuilding together san francisco. >> thank you supervisor president london breed i'd like to call of staff from rebuilding together.
2:40 am
>> so i'm very, very honored to have worked all the years in office with rebuilding together they've been doing renovation and repairs on single-family homes all across san francisco but particularly strong from providing the support to figure that deal with disability and low income folks in the district 11 and especially 2, 3, 4 in my omi we have a african-american population that is diminishing and helping the people in houses and pass them on the the next generation i have a participated in rebuilding together events and has been great to see the
2:41 am
bacon people's lives theirs such a feeling of joy that there houses and places they inhabit will be where we get around more easily and this help pulling together is free rebuilding is around since 1989 some of you might have remembered it was called in april and all those years providing great care for people all over the city i want to say thaw grateful for your service in district 11 especially in the omi and thank you for your great work and present you with the honor for your commitment to the housing in san francisco thank you very much. >> (clapping.) >> thank you supervisor avalos and everyone
2:42 am
john you wanted said it perfectly we've been helping seniors and people with disabilities and low income families stay in their homes for 27 years as supervisor kim said the future of housing support is unclear now so i think that is more important as ever that our repairs that bring together neighbors helping neighbors and corporate organizations in san francisco to support our work it is more important than ever so we really appreciate the conformation. >> thank you one thing i want to mention in district 11 two major community development projects in these two collaborate actives the omi collaborative and valley kohlman the former staff is now with the adult protective services had to leave the effort and that was a huge impact had a huge impact on district 11 those collaborative's have resulted in
2:43 am
having grant making podiums that is overseen by the residents that allows the residents to plan community projects like murld and other promotions that are parks and supporting our corridor so thank you for that tremendous effort as als and ott are parks and supporting our corridor so thank you for that tremendous effort as well. >> thank you rebuilding together for all our amazing work throughout the city and county of san francisco thank you so much and with that, i'd like to for
2:44 am
the final conformation for today i'd like to recognize supervisor mar. >> thank you, colleagues i'd like to ask you to join me in honoring the families for safe streets and walk sf in their efforts as we promote sunday november two 20th as world day remembrance so let me ask for jennifer for safe streets and natalie to come forward i think the model as an advocatecy organization has used over the past year or longer to develop a development a develop a because of survivors of traffic crashes and victims' families to really build a strong voice of mature support and based organization he that that transit organizations no new york city have uses the model it is time for san francisco and the whole
2:45 am
region i'm appreciative in the just san francisco but were a regional model as well every year as much of you here 1.2 million people are killed in road crashes globally but 20 pedestrians we are killed in san francisco and 75 pedestrians were seriously injured in crashes this is not acceptable one of the graphs crossed out accidents as a visual they're preventable and calling not traffic accidents but traffic crashes and killings basically, i think those are not just staves but serious injuries and loss of loved one to whole communities i'm proud 24 effort by walk sf but building the new
2:46 am
equity and using world remembrance of traffic victims is going on a memorial walk this coming sunday i ask 16th street of 445 to walk to city hall where the building that be lit yellow in commemoration of those who passed its and the families standing up to make our streets safer and acknowledge that our vision zero project we wouldn't have vision zero without walk sf and the families that are advocating for safer streets i really thank them for making sure that san francisco is at forefront of the nation on vision zero and advancing our work and walk sf is building a regional bayview family for safe streets that will pubically launch on sunday afternoon the families have lost loved ones
2:47 am
and injured themselves and want to recognize to chief vision zero the group that will be leading the walk that will be holding a having anyal at city hall so is 12:30 u 3:30 to 5:30 at bart wear yellow clothing and hats and scarves if you want more information walk sf.org we'll remember this sunday is is a moment to annuity and city enough is enough standing together with victims and survivors and family members that know first hand the emotional mental toll that is x tracked by the traffic violence. >> thank you supervisor yee who couldn't be with us today, i know last year, we joined the world and supervisor kim and others joined us thank you to walk sf the vision zero coalition and the world day
2:48 am
remembrance with that, let me introduce family for safe streets jen just and natalie from walk sf. >> (clapping.) >> hello, i'm representing not only my mom who was seriously injured by a chiropractor but i'm here representing my family members and friends and people impacted by irresponsible action by a driver one of the city's most - this devastated my mom's finances she suffered brain injury in 2011 i'm here threatening supervisor mar and let you guys know to bring together support to support families that are impacted and make changes for our streets to
2:49 am
make them safer out there thank you. >> (clapping.) >> thank you very much supervisor mar for recognizing the work that will be starting with the family members they're the real heroes they've dealt with grief and volunteering their time and energy to effect the positive change is inspiring glad to have jenny and to the board of supervisors for unanimously supporting vision zero thank you. >> thank you for your service and again, congratulations
2:50 am
okay. we'll return to our agenda supervisor peskin would you i'm sorry supervisor kim were you done with your questions okay supervisor peskin thank you madam president and colleagues this is obviously been going on for a long time if we heart attack back to the days bill clinton was president and military bases were closed all around the united states including many here in the bay area in 1996 was the beginning of the planning for the eventual turnover of navy station treasure island to the city and county of san francisco at the same time work began on the hunters point shipyard which as we know many parcels that already been turned over to the city
2:51 am
i became a member of the board of supervisors in 2001 and we undertook action on the 8 years on the board including exactly 10 years ago this month when we adopted the term sheet for the development of treasure island contaminate that was envisioned to be thirty percent affordable housing yes, we didn't anticipate the end of the redevelopment but when the board in 2011 actively adopted a project that was 2000 unit larger contaminate it was reduced from thirty percent to 25 percent and i salute supervisor kim that managed to get that number theoretically back up to 27.2 percent the goalpost have yet to be thirty percent if you compare this to the hunters point shipyard we
2:52 am
have actively achieved that with no funding gap the way the project is very, very different i'm concerned - i don't want to do development for development sake and make developers rich the whole premise of that for public benefits three hundred acres of open space and some 2000 units of affordable housing i'm absolutely prepared to vote for it but i don't want to vote foreperson for an enterprise promise but triggers and if as we think are all relatively certain that some of the ideas and i want to thank staff for public health department them in writing rather than available ideas now before us in this 6 page memo prepared by director and beck or 5 page memo tells us what we know this is highly
2:53 am
unlikely political environment the governor the great state of california will take 12e7z away to end development in the state of california i don't foresee the 25.3 percent e rap and relative to extending the life of the ifd from 40 to 45 years have yet to take action but not limited to contacting our lobbyists in 70 in sacramento any staff contacted yesterday other ideas we should discuss and commit ourselves current with committing ourselves to the instrument before you today and the infrastructure that financing please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones, that will be before us presumably at the next meeting and looking at the go down authority one idea i shared with the developers and some of
2:54 am
members of this board earlier today is that if this board and the developers and the mayor were to commit ourselves to moving forward with treasure island ground to meet the gap come our next general election be ♪ 2018 or november of 2018 or earlier should there be any reason for a special election that will be much more of a guarantee than the long implication of the ifd or having the state legislative and the governor of california do something unlikely for a number of years to provide that redevelopment increment back to this project i want to i want to put that out there and i will hope we can have a very quick and sincere discussion about committing ourselves to a go
2:55 am
down rather than saying general than saying we approved - we're doing better on private land on, on the mainland with inclusionary housing law we're doing better than that in many cases and supervisor kim showed you again and again in south of market as pier 70 and in the seawall lot i'm having trouble saying yes to a project on land that we - >> thank you supervisor peskin supervisor avalos. >> thank you. i do have concerns about the funding gap
2:56 am
although i'm prepared to vote today it would be good to have more time my biggest concerns we're not able to call back that our resources that in moh that go through other be neighborhoods can accumulate on treasure island and deny other neighborhoods around huge development more affordable housing to have the resources to do so and i wasn't going to speak again but supervisor peskin mentioned a go bond made me think we can't have a go bond for treasure island a go bond that includes will treasure island but huge needs around affordable housing and reservoir and maximize the work we're looking at my neighborhood is looking at go bonds and
2:57 am
specifically at neighborhood spread over the city for the support if we're going to focusing go bond dollars on affordable housing it should be geared to looking at places that we have to develop not just the housing itself but the infrastructure for the neighborhoods to be able to thrive it is something we'll be doing for treasure island and things that are despite needed to i imagine phil the reservoir sites with the schlage lock and other places we laid the ground work for development. >> thank you supervisor avalos supervisor cowen. >> thank you. i think that conversation is very interesting land use conversation and i'm actually was going to touch on some of the points that supervisor avalos spoke to about a go bond not narrowly tailored
2:58 am
for treasure island but something opportunities there that is larger we can wrap the entire city like supervisor avalos with the visitacion valley is right more affordable housing we have some other funding gaps as well i think about hope 6 projects supervisor kim if anything you may not have said that exactly how much is the gap we're talking about. >> 22 to 23 millions. >> 22. >> the gap is roughly 200 and $42 million. >> assuming mohcd is $30 million commitment we'll put into the resolution. >> all right. i have no future questions thank you very much. >> supervisor mar. >> thank you, supervisor kim
2:59 am
for doing everything she can to make up this very large gap it supervisor peskin outlined i want to thank kate hartley as well for making up that $30 million amount and thank you to our corral ben rosenfield and nadya and bob beck for the documents you've provided my colleagues and i are censured concerned about the likelihood on the state efforts for e rap and to extend the ifd for 5 years and other colleagues mentioned the potential local bonds and i also think there is a commitment to treasure island and i think that is critical that we follow through but needs of other districts my colleagues mentioned it is important but a commitment made to treasure island in this development to see strong affordability the letter we received from
3:00 am
sherry the director of tihdi emphasize the homeless and veterans and project but the charities with the mercy housing is critical for treasure island and the many families that and people that currently live on treasure island as well i'll be supporting that and supporting effort in the last few days a few few of us sure we're living up to the affordability but up to the next board to share there are bonds that move forward their equitable looking at the treasure island and thank you to supervisor peskin for raising the key concerns about this and i shared those concerns we'll work with kim and others to get more clarity on what strategies
3:01 am
to make up this $20,082,000,000 gap we brought up today. >> thank you supervisor mar supervisor campos. >> thank you madam president i know i came into the meeting ready to support the items not so sure maybe the kind of thing i'll defer to supervisor kim as the district supervisor in terms of how she wants to proceed so with that, you know through the chair i'll you know ask the district supervisor for her guidance on this. >> thank you. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you colleagues first of all, in my questioning he didn't take the time to appreciate the work that at the end of the day the mayor's office of economic workforce development and the controller's office was able to do over the last few weeks in project by
3:02 am
project the potential funds that will help us close this initially 200 and 74 now 200 and $40 million gap i'm hopeful that the prospects we'll be able to build this to completion i'm looking for is some type of guarantee that will help link the affordable housing production leader to our market-rate housing production in many ways similar to what we do when we allow the developers to offsite their affordable housing i want to take a little bit more time we have this hearing coming before the board i'll ask we move this to later on in the board agenda and come up with other - and i want to acknowledge the work i'm appreciative we wouldn't come if
3:03 am
a place to guarantee the funding but like to see a little bit more closure to guarantee this commitment that happen down the street. >> for clarity supervisor kim we've move on with the agenda. >> take 2 at a later time. >> thank you with that, it is not 3 o'clock we have two, 3:00 p.m. special orders it is my understanding that one of those 3:00 p.m. special orders will be continued so i'm going to call the items 39 through 42 first items 39 through 42 comprise the special order public hearings of persons in the puc with approval of 3 units of new construction on alhambra street dated 2016
3:04 am
items 40 to 44 the 340gs associated with the public hearings. >> supervisor farrell. >> thank you supervisor president london breed colleagues we've been working with the parties involved here and gotten everyone to eyes and ears and go to work out the remaining issues make a motion to continue those items to december 6th. >> supervisor farrell has made a motion to continue this item to december 6th seconded by supervisor cowen and before we take a vote on this item any public comment on the continuance seeing none, public comment is closed. madam clerk on the motion to continue colleagues colleagues, can we take that same house, same call? - roll call. >> okay. >> mr. gibner. >> john gibner, deputy city attorney. are for the record the board is continuing the item holding it
3:05 am
on for further public comment when the item is heard at the board. >> just to be clear the public comment was on for the specific continuance. >> right when there is a tentative map like this we're required to open public comment and hold it on so there can be additional public comment at future meetings just to be clear he had only asked for public comment on the continuance and not public comment on the temper say is that appropriate. >> i'll suggest welcoming public comment a map appeal i don't know if anyone was here to speak on the item itself. >> thank you for that clarity any public comment? who is here to specifically speak on the item please come forward we've hold public comment open for the continuance as well seeing none, public comment is closed. madam clerk on the continuance leaving public comment held open
3:06 am
for this particular hearing same house, same call? this will be continued to december 6, 2016. >> madam clerk please call items 35 through 38. >> items 35 through 38 comprise the special order at the 3:00 p.m. for a public hearing for interested persons suggesting to a depreciation of exemption in environmental impact under the california environmental quality act issued as a community plan exemption by the planning department on july 12, 2016, and approved by the planning commission on august 2016 the proposed project located at 1515 south van ness to allow demolition of an existing building and new construction of 55 at all 5 to 6 residential uses and item 36 to
3:07 am
confirm the planning department and item 37 to reverse the determination and next the appropriation related to a board disapproval for the plan exemption depreciation. >> colleagues before us an appeal for a project on south van ness avenue for this hearing item number 35 we will be considering whether to approve the planning commission determination that the project at 1515 south van ness avenue is exempt from further environmental review under a community plan exemption without objection we will precede as following up to 10 minutes for presentation by the appellant or the appellants representative up to two minutes in support of appeal, up to 10 minutes for a presentation for the city departments and 10 minutes for the project sponsor or the representative up to 2
3:08 am
minutes in opposition of speakers for the appeal and finally 3 minutes for rebuttal for the appellant or appellants representative please note if you're here to speak on the 1515 south van ness appeal now will be the time to do so with that, i'd like to recognize supervisor campos. >> thank you very much madam president without budget committee lashing the appeal i just want to take the opportunity to thank the appellant as well as the project sponsors we encourage folks on both sides of this project to sit down and have a conversation about a possible settlement we provided the space for that to happen i want to thank the parties for doing that unfortunately, there was no resolution that was reached no
3:09 am
settlement that was agreed upon so with that, i would simply say thank you and if we can proceeded to a hearing of the appeal thank you. >> okay. and at this time, i'd like to recognize the appellant and ask them to please come forward for their presentation. >> good afternoon. i'm scott weaver for the coordinate latino counsel we can't look at this project as in a bubble for in isolation from everything else that is happening in the mission one and 20 household from this project and 2000 households in proposed projects in the mission will move to the mission and with them they'll bring
3:10 am
their high incomes earning 3 to four times what current resident earn and their disposal income after taxed and rent will exceed the income of resident before taxed and before rent so let's look at what happened to van ness street with in development and some in the pipeline or mission street 24/721st and 22 where the project is that buck is completely gunmen if i had on van ness street our $6 can you sanity or a meal up to one percent and fancy clothes and spend a lot of money for a had been those are not the kind of businesses that belong in the district the kind of gentrification is the beginning
3:11 am
what is to come is an overwhelm economic force it will change the faced of the mission and of the cayuga coordinate strict and ceqa requires we study the cumulative impacts of projects that have been approved and have been built that are at least projects in the pipeline and so at a minimum we have to look and see there that there is clearly a threat in the morning 2000 units that are currently in the pipeline i have a graphic here can i have the overhead? there we go. >> those red dots represent proposed projects right now there are - thank you. >> right now thorough approximately, six 5 we don't have all of them down we haven't automobile the information from the planning department but as
3:12 am
you can see tare concentrated into two vibrant centers of latino culture and activity the mission is in trouble we're witnessing development that is far beyond that which was envisioned in the eastern neighborhoods plan in the eir as of february of this year according to the planning department there were 24 hundred plus unit built entitled or under environmental review in the mission the preferred project being 16 hundred 96 that means we've gone 50 percent over the preferred project and the total number the largest number in the eir was 200054 unit we're above that as well and we are only halfway through the eastern neighborhoods program that program was supposed to last if 2008 to 2025 the
3:13 am
development is happening twice as fast as we anticipated and the diversity of housing in the eastern neighborhoods in terms of affordability, versus luxurious housing is out of kilter partly was of the rapid pace of development so this should give us could you say causing to revisit at least some of the elements of the planned eir especially where with respect to the displacement and community benefits we have goals of maintaining the vibrancy of our businesses we need to buckle up on that things are happening much faster than anticipated and in the small 5 by 4 block area that constitutes the cayuga coordinate 6 hundred and 50 lurk unit are at or nearing entitlement more on the way one and 82 projections we're not
3:14 am
counting on 15 and south van ness another project on 24 and shot well and 3 on the corner of 22 and mission this board of supervisors established the latino culture district in 2014 and established at the ding graphic area and in admits resolution the board noted in the whereas sections a long history in the latino culture district and it memorialized 2 as richness of entrepreneurship is unrivaled and the district was established to establish to the stabilize the displacement of latino businesses and residents and to preserve the quatro for the commerce and enhance its unique nature well with the one
3:15 am
slough of all this development and more to come what is at risk in terms of cultural viability vibrancy of economic opportunity for latinos and how can we mitigate those risks before it is good late when a business moved a resident moves out that's it in their not coming back so for more than a year we've suicide the city to answer those questions nothing the city has said not a ceqa issue they're wrong on a number of counts i don't know how thoroughly you were able to review the briefing that i gave you but the subject of ceqa review under the holdings of barks field that was highlighted the assistant brief was discussed and barker's field
3:16 am
it is progeny stood for the individually a or cumulatively cause - the replacement of mom and pop's businesses with high ended biz businesses held by, llc corporation is such a physical change agreed or we're not talking about urban decay in the classic sense bakersfield. >> we're talking about the conditions contrary to this city designated for the district bakers field is on all for us
3:17 am
and i've not heard a response and second it is of historic value in my brief on page 9 is not necessary you have an actual historical designation to where historical value under ceqa the quatro district meets the qualification of having historic value and third the displacement of businesses nonprofits and residents will result in reverse commutes which will change patterns of traffic, parking, transportation and additional green houses and those matters were not discussed not discussed in the eir. >> also a ceqa issue is that things changed dramatically
3:18 am
since the internal revenue prices are you will stepping and at least counts for the rapid rise in the number of development twice that of that was anticipated and community benefits have not kept pace with that something that was appointment by the eastern neighborhoods comment advisory council the lack of affordable housing is recognized finally there is the ininconsistent with the stated goals of eastern neighborhoods plan and the general plan plan that includes the preservation for our neighborhoods and for the provision of affordable housing. >> so the cumulative impacts of this project and the others mentioned threaten those goals and an elevation of those
3:19 am
impacts in establishing effective mitigation measures is imperative we're asking that you tell the planning department to do its job tell the planning department to analyze the impacts this massive and sudden even market-rate has on the quatro district and other cultural we have and to develop mitigation will will blunt those impacts siding for the past year. >> thank you very much supervisor campos. >> thank you madam president if i may ask mr. weaver to come back i want to ask you a question mr. weaver something
3:20 am
i'd like to ask you to expand on if i may the question of how the existence of the latino cultural district sort of expands on the analysis that the discussion that had in the prior hearing here we have on the bryan project so can be expand a little bit more on that how the existence of this cultural district impacts the ceqa analysis here that's the point you made i want to make sure we have a full understanding of what you're argument is on that. >> well boring o borrowing from bakersfield. >> it is designated as something special and it is and therefore the impacts on this area are different and will have to be looked at definitely than
3:21 am
they would in the eastern neighborhoods as a whole it is a very small area geographical but dense in terms of the culture vital outlet and the residences and businesses the city hesitate sought to protect with the bryan street project that was not in the district itself through we believe will have an impact on the district this project is in the district itself and will definitely have a direct an impact it is right through and bringing people into the area that have higher incomes we don't budget committee little people for earning a lot of money but it result in change in the community in the physical structure of a community storefronts will be different we're going to see instead of
3:22 am
what we see as 24th street street more of what we see as we go down van ness street i pointed out in any brief that one of the big concerns that the latin cultural district council expressed during the community dwaement the quote van nesstion of the cultural district and your seeing that happening and we're not saying that gentrification didn't happen on hits own accord but it market-rate housing development on the scale is going to have an accelerating effect and put jurisdiction into hyper gentrification that is a kind of a physical impact on the environment we firmly believe that the bakersfield case talked
3:23 am
about thank you very much. >> thank you and now i'd like to open this item up to those who are interested in purporting the appeal if you're here to speak during public comment specifically for support of this appeal please come forward now you'll have up to 2 minutes each. >> first speaker please. ma'am, come forward. >> hello, everybody i'm sharon on artist in the mission and i usually speak from my heart but today, i felt i had to read something we are at this crisis in our nation; right? this election has been devastating i assume for most of the people in the room and it is also prove that corporations are actually
3:24 am
conceding in transforming our citizens into consumers to our quite easy duped they've been wiping out villages and main streets for strip malls and box stores across the country so, now too many americans are isolated what with their communities destroyed they've mistaken a billionaire for a safer but not only that loud a predator it is our elected officials turning a blind eye and that concentration of power and wealth is replicated here in our city it is destroying san francisco's community san francisco is a small city but until now if is always been a beige beagle and outspoken and
3:25 am
speaking truth to power where we were we before this election we're putting our energy here struggling with you our supervisors we've been struggling to keep our homes and businesses here when you been approving those corporate proposals and refusing to demand an environmental impact statement we're working against becoming at monocultural city filed with closed offices and luxury development >> thank you very much ma'am, thank you. >> thank you we have other speakers, too, we have to give everyone the same amount of time thank you. >> we hear you thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon mary aliza speaking as a concerned citizen we support the appeal of the eir
3:26 am
exemption for the project because we believe the eir was inadequate and seriously flawed because based on outdated information a few cases are going forward in courts that upheld some of the issues the pace of high-end housing has out paced san francisco with saviors - families that project pursue importantly will replace 35 thousand pdr businesses with 4 thousand square feet of trade shop that is doesn't appear to meet the new replacement requirements removal of pdrs businesses has resulted in an uptick of traffic as the construction workers and others are forced to drive into the
3:27 am
city they formally resided in a serious shortage of plain scribbled trained people will add to the cost i personally am great deal dealing with that it is hard to get work done on any kind of work done in the city on your property have you heard here's a chance to send back a project to demands improvement to meet the standards please send a message that voters can expect more from officials than rubber stamping thank you for your time and consideration and i'll leave you with copies thank you. >> thank you very much >> next speaker, please. >> we'll have someone take them thank you. >> hello good afternoon i'd like to echo the sent times of the first speaker a critical
3:28 am
time in our country and san francisco is being threatened with the funding for sanitary cities to be taken away that will take a tremendous amount of courage on behalf of all of us to keep san francisco's soul and spirit alive i would like to say that i don't think any of you in good conscious consider the eastern neighborhoods eir adequate it is obsolete and clearly so all i'm asking is is an eir for this project that will show the effects it is having on the communities and also the cayuga latino district supervisor president london breed you were recently quoted supervisor president london breed? you remember recently quoted
3:29 am
eyes and ears as saying yes, we need to abide by the laws but we need to be creative in interpreting them so the original intention as serviced o served none in the room can say the eir is fulfilling the original intentions of the ceqa law it is meant to protect the quality of life in our city and our community and it is both lazy and unconscionable you'll go ahead and allow the eastern neighborhoods eir to stand as sufficient but things have changed since then are outstanding i beg of you to please look at a way for once interpret our laws in favor of the people and the heart and soul of the city i've seen many times the trespasser through the developers that can't continue
3:30 am
thank you >> thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> (clapping.) >> madam president prosecute the next speaker i'll get a gentle reminder to the public you'll please direct our remarks to the board and not individual supervisors that neither applause but you're welcome to use our supportive fingers thank you. >> thank you, madam clerk. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm susan a parent of a child that attends school in the mission and small business owner woman and i struggled with what to say today because i know nothing will change our minds and the project will be approved i just want to emphasize that the eastern neighborhoods plan is why doutdated it is disheart as the member of a citizen of
3:31 am
san francisco to continually come before the board and the planning commission and to have you all act like our hands are tied we can't do anything ceqa didn't allow us to do anything the eastern neighborhoods plan not allowing us to do anything figure out how to protect the mission >> (clapping.) >> it is a cultural gem not only in this decide but were in the united states it is being destroyed bit by bit being destroyed i went to a theatre over the weekends in a few years we've not have 3 kind of thing anymore and san francisco has to be a city that has a neighborhood where low income brown latino people of color can live you guys are putting another nail in the cost
3:32 am
i think i'm tired of hearing there is nothing else you can do. >> thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> hello my name is louie want to address you the board as a 40 year homeowner and in the mission and someone whose family is back to the 1920s in the mission i'm is an artist and affirm maker and teacher at the city college campus in the mission district and as a teacher and as an artist i have had a lot of contact with many of the young artists that live in the neighborhood i've met as well as the older artists that have been here so - i'm fortunate because i was able to buy a house many years ago, i was able to afford it not now but many of my friends and colleagues and artists have been force-out in
3:33 am
the last years and want to say something the mission is misrepresent cultural multi ethic it is wonderful as a latino neighborhood i want to preserve that but includes people of all ethic nighnicitie all. >> the first bunch of people i saw leave in 2008, 9, needing we're losing the young artists a cultural distinct you can't have a cultural district without workers and artists and some of whom i taught at city college are the first ones i say leaving we want to say i want to support
3:34 am
the housing projects in the mission and that particular one it is apt to have an environmental review the environment includes the whole neighborhood and what is it made up of to have artists in the mission we need affordable housing i'd like to see more affordable housing as part of this project thank you very much. >> thank you next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is tor i think i'm speaking today against the proposed development ann at 115 south van ness as long as the intent task mess and urging a real environmental review i believe there are a lot of unmitigated environmental impacts related to gentrification when people are displaced through the racist developers former residents have to commute longer thus making
3:35 am
air pollution that will displace how many other hours and a racism elaborate the dimpling of condemns in the brown and black neighborhoods causing asthma and the pooechlz the traffic inclusion impacts across the region will hurt people of color the most and as a white person i must out against racism please stop this of the - until we know about the invasive species known eased white people thank you, thank you very much>> i. religious lived in the migration mixing as a renter for 40 years all i'm asking is to accept our appeal for deep environmental impact of the lennar's proposal for 1515 south van ness how, how to looks like the mission
3:36 am
district this development is mostly market-rate will ramp up the devastation by displacement due to eviction and crippling latino families and african-american and people with disabilities we despite as you may know for real affordable housing not token amounts in in addition to the luxury housing on neighborhood the issue of lennar's history of lack of transparency and unsafe practices how can you accept lennar's proposal in the mission the federal government federal government has stopped transfers of land in bayview hunters point that at the time are tech showed false reports i'm sure you know from nbc reports people in bayview hunters point have
3:37 am
default with saviors heart and soul issues with breast cancer and for fraudulent soil samples they continue to lobby for more contract and get those contracts lennar has been instrumental in the displacement of community and bayview hunters point la and vallejo is planning to conquer treasure island again, the issue of radioactive soil and the mission bringing action and other groups are extensive experience and knowledge of lennar's history please listen to them i'm requesting viral studies of 115 van ness with a tanering with lead and hyde car bones and petroleum the people of bayview hunters point will continue to support each other in their efforts to keep our community safe and prevent the
3:38 am
sale of the city to the highest bidder thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors marie actually, i'm here representing green action but more i'm here to remind you of the great catastrophe in bayview you allotted those projects and many of the folks died in one year over 8 who diet in one particular area on any block 8 men that died from cancer setting that aside bayview used to be a community of family you use the word affordable look that up and who is it affordable to not to myself or my children who working hard their renting 34 houses they should be ownership what you do here today
3:39 am
to me it is - if i pass this if you overlook all the crisis and pleas of the mission you've condiment san francisco to a fate that is horrible so no longer be a families here especially families that look like you and i we're a mixture vital any family because we're all different sizes and shapes and colors and you'll suffering from the same thing the lack of support from the folks we elected to support us so i'm asking you know that will not do any good half of you made up your minds but understand we've not stand idly but if there is nothing you'll hear our cries and anger and frustration trust me you'll hear from us
3:40 am
again. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> so i see scott wiener is not here he's getting his robe realternated and supervisor farrell is pulling out his planned robe and supervisor tang is not wearing hers i've assert here time and time again, when people disregard and dishumanize brown people your black or white or asian you're a bigot a racist, as much as donald trump and his right meow fascist are too but you have a black or asian face and so you get to say you're not a bigot and don't hate mexico's but everything in our career say screw you before
3:41 am
people because my power is more important than our lies than our children than our sanity than your health your anatomy anatomy vial humans that have a political desire and you all who ever out our life and vote until the last latino is in the mission is forcefully removed you don't give a damn our self-steward who carres. >> i say you listen and don't nothing shame on you for having hard working people that happen to be brown and talk with an accent that don't put money do
3:42 am
our coffers you don't give a damn shame on you for your bigotry. >> thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> my name is tom ray a nature san franciscan and lived in the mission the housing development is helping the housing crisis and with half the newly built condo is owned by absentee owners living outside of san francisco their second homes check your own tax assessors office this is the truth those luxury units are not affordable to the middle-income first responders the police, teachers city workers construction workers and even many tax workers can't afford cultural question have built one and 20
3:43 am
percent above had is needed san francisco has a condo with massive industry and according to the san francisco business times they've agreed we have too much the studies will have more housing units are needed to offset the market-rate development the university of california has done extensive studies on displacement and gentrification in the mission don't you even read and study those studies those studies exhibit real facts on the effects of luxury housing development since the 22 luxury developments sites in the mission are public real estate interests and developers have been moving in and iranians the rent and environmental impact people and businesses at an incredible rate so the compassionate to make a killing financially before their built currently there are one
3:44 am
and 50 to one plus evictions a month in the mission how can you justify three hundred housing units and displacing and evicting 5 thousand people and businesses out of the mission both within 5 years urge current policy of build build build luxury - >> thank you very much thank you sir, thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is mary sorenson with the quatro that is the real david and go litigate mission with the protecting d on one does the developer with a nation wide reputation seeking yet to add a building that is brand on the other side is the community to rankle e remain
3:45 am
it's soul and community quite frankly if san francisco the community is losing quite a bit not just in the mission the fact that the mission - the mission is losing our identity yes, we were allowed to create a cultural corridor i say thank you but the fact is that corridor has no teeth no skin in the game we're there in name only and nothing we can do about that building is continuing at a horrifying pace thanks to backroom deals if you think that is a harsh thing to say i have two words millennium tower this is a town you search warrant to pay to play the community will always lose and the developers will make hefty contributions to causes and
3:46 am
candidates and the developers always win so i ask you, please the eir is important sends this back we don't need this building in our neighborhood as proven over and over again, we need affordable housing we don't need more high-end luxury units thank you. >> >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon eric brooks sf green party/our city/sf clean energy advocates. i just want to oppose the approval of this and suggest to you and ask you to dig deeper to realize the past actions of that corps that will be approved to go forward under this eir approval would need to be
3:47 am
considered in regards to the environmental impact we have a corporation that has global corporation nation wide is involved heavy in the sub prime loan market scandals in san francisco and other parts of california has repeatedly made promises and nothing on the promises after making them and repeatedly gotten you all to approve things like that and spent millions of going to the ballot a change the conditions of what you approved when you have a corporation of a history of going to the ballot to change the conditions you need to consider that in the environmental impact our considering because we are talking about a corporation on that to gentrify and that totally changes the game awards to what our looking and the history we all know of repeated health violations in
3:48 am
construction being nuclear and radioactive wastes and how building and properly monitor asbestos this is a corporation a bad actor and that applies to our view and consider all those things recently a contractor overseeing those lapd's for this same company for the navy potentially would leverage with this company covered up the extent of the nuclear waste what will it do in the mission please reject this. >> thank you very much >> next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm here to oppose this development i've been in the mission for thirty years i'm an artist and curator and worked on and off at different times in bayview hunters point in remedial education and in the mission as well
3:49 am
so i know lennar my studio spice e space is in bayview i've watched lennar in the wloif it is horrendous when i saw that it was lennar development pending right off of 24th street it is last week, a double insult i felt i had to come down here i'm sure there is a lot of money on the other side i felt i had to be part of conscious of this city and speak on behalf of as one member of the arts community that is mostly living in oakland i mean, we're all leaving our musicians and artists come in and place shows they're not living here anymore if this development is allowed to go through managed by this criminal company corporation it is really like a tip point for the mission people can't bear it we can't
3:50 am
bear luxury apartment and condos being built right posed on cayuga 24 it is unacceptable there has to be ways this board has proposed developments thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi supervisor breed i'm suzy those burn my husband and i own glass key photo in the lower hate i'm here because i think this development i'm opposed to this development and building that is a gunmen fir aentrifier we have a mom and pop business you're losing our middle-class
3:51 am
i'm parted of middle-class and gentrification is a health issue a huge problem in the city written in the health board rules that gentrification is a problem exist diversity is important for any community and if you keep envoy a green light it is bad for those displaced left behind if stressful to think you'll losses our business and house as apartment please does not let this development go through. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> i live a half block away from in development as i speak the majority of people on my block that didn't know what is
3:52 am
going on every time demonstrates on the corner they'll ask me what is going on because lennar did a very, very poor outreach to those neighbors around i also want to share about a month ago so there will be a low low income for senior development 26 shot well about a month ago i went to a meeting the same group of neighbors that are supporting this development showed up they have issues with that low income development and pretty much their agreed the shadow and the parking they argued everything and every single point was debunk not that i recall one lost her cool we have a high concentration of low income people around us i want to be clear regardless of what lakeshore says there's a very clear and i'm right there i'm half a block away that there impact my life directly the
3:53 am
traffic will be worse everything will be worse i want to be clear there is discriminatory and racist on the development itself and again, i live in the 14 hundred block from van ness half a block my life will be directly impacted and the neighbors are not aware of what is going on. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> (clapping.) >> good afternoon as we saw in the last election bigotry and racism is rampant in the cry and 10 percent of san franciscans voted for trump that entire platform of racism the rest of us in san francisco have to take a stand to protect our neighbors to be good allies and to stand up for immigrants undertook attack our facebook are full the
3:54 am
solidarity message in support of immigrant that's all talk how better to walk the walk how can we do better to protect the latino district and walk the walk to protect the commission mission and the community members please support this appeal mr. weaver gave you the legal basis to get an actual eir to see the impacts instead of using an antiquated one i've lived in the mission since 1984 i'm a homeowner but were we don't all - i moved to the mission especially to be a community where kids make art mural i'm happy to see that lennar will go all union that's huge but few of the union members will be able to live in the, they build to protect the latino cultural district we have asked lennar to follow the prop
3:55 am
k with 33 percent of the unit to be affordable which breakdown to 25 percent of - for working families that is not unremarkable to provide a quarter of units for the working-class families that live in the mix 8 percent for the middle-class that is going away and still get two-thirds for our profit base and our wraeshthd anything else will demate the latino loovrn has done enough - >> thank you very much thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi my name is alisha a counselor with the human rights community i was born and raised in the mission district the mission street mission district is in a crisis gentrification displacement, eviction enough is enough
3:56 am
we're you are bringing a stranger to our community lennar is a stranger they're coming here to build luxury development and we're saying that's okay; right? no, it's not okay what do we want one percent affordable housing we want to support a project that gentrifies the latino cultural district you are by and large our decision eir this was created in 2008, 8 years from today, there are so many things that happened in 8 years are term limitations; right? the mission has grown so much in 8 years the rents have skyrocketed and so many things happen in 8 years and take into account on eir what is that going to happen we're not living in did past but
3:57 am
the present so many people have been displaced and forced to move out of the city how can you invite a multi corporation like lennar to take over the mission to take over bayview? how can you think that is okay. that's not okay enough is enough >> (speaking foreign language.) >> thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> ladies and gentlemen, i'm john along with erica i'm one of the co-founders of the latino cultural district i would be the founder no and did i think when that came through i'd, homeless but the fact that annabel was my neighbor next door and the cottage the lived in and the alley i take care of i'm no
3:58 am
longer there because as long as lennar came in greedy landlords went from nine hundred to 45 hundred in less than months that was 11 months ago i'm still homeless am i crying and asking for help i'm out here fighting for my community all kinds of documents that show what is happening in the mission no one is asking you some of us are looking at us because this is not right or that is not right one of the supervisors made a comment about a website and made fun of it like all we want is respect to be heard to be at the table to be at the table where decisions in our lives are made i don't know if this is true the mapping project 8 thousand latinos from my neighborhood is gone i know that to be true when
3:59 am
is this going to stop. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> i'm an sro collaborative and oppose the building on van ness until higher standards more affordable housing i opts that the first reason so important because just now there has been a person appointed to head the epa yet we're skipping the eir is not mangy understand that construction workers they you know we all need jobs to survive but if we build housing it is providing jobs and at market-rate housing levels those people who would move into that they don't need our help they can move wherever people with
4:00 am
can afford market-rate we need to build affordable housing those people don't have an agency thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi good afternoon. i'm a 415 inconsistent born organizer the mission statement of this body reads as follows: the board of supervisors respond to the needs of the people of the city and county of san francisco respond to the needs of people the mission statement of the board of supervisors of you last i checked we don't need anymore gentrification we don't need more displacement you already know what is happening out there you already know the inherent classes that
4:01 am
exist one luxury development the question remains, however, what you are going to do about that when are you going to craw draw a line in the said. >>and say this is where we stop and shift if caring about money interests to the interests of the people of the city how much gentrification needs to happen until you say enough will you ever say enough how many of us and the businesses we frequent will be forcefully pushed out by your inaction yesterday at our you think it's gathering you said san francisco will remain a sanctuary city if you keep up this not much places for people to afford you stress the importance of being inclusive north yet approve
4:02 am
projects conflicting for the well-off i understand this is what you're used to for the projects meet the crepe you'll pass that that is not working look at the situation outside people can't afford to live here people are suffering all you do is allow the luxury vemdz developments in the city this need to stop today >> (clapping.) >> >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> sir before the next speaker i'll remind the public applause is prohibited by the board rules you're welcome to use the supportive fingers thank you. >> thank you. i'm terry i'm a member of the sro collaborative he oppose the intent task mess on south van ness and like to say we need more affordable housing for the needs of low income and the homeless population which is over 6 thousand people
4:03 am
the environmental impact report is insufficient it and take into account the impact of the displacement which is a social economic impact this also effects me and the people in any community because of the homeless plight is dire and the affairs not enough affordable housing i don't support the project the titanic on south van ness more housing for the rich and have no consideration for the displacement or the gentrification thank you very much. >> thank you, sir. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm diana ma'am, move the microphone so we can hear. >> you you're welcome i'm diane with the mission sro collaborative a project with the lower street services i'm here
4:04 am
to oppose the titanic on south van ness the proposed project is not reportable people will be unable to afford the rents the developers are proposing a small amount of below-market-rate housing and those market rents will be too high for the existing communities thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> . >> (speaking foreign language.) >> you're welcome to use the other microphone. >> my name is lori live in the
4:05 am
mission and instead of building the luxury condominiums invest in building affordable housing. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> we are living in worse conditions a month ago i was physically assaulted going into any home. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> we need you to build affordable housing for everyone on the streets to be able to have a place to live. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> supervisor campos knows where i live he came to visit me
4:06 am
knows i live in a home my room is also my bedroom, my living room and kitchen. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> i know i'm okay now i have a roof over my head where i live. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> but instead of building luxurious housing worry about building homes for people that actually need it. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> i think that you would not be happy to see all the things we see in front of our homes. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> thank you very much. >> thank you, ma'am.
4:07 am
>> next speaker, please. >> hello good afternoon. my name is diana martini with the sro collaborative a program of the lower street community services i'm here to speak out against the 115 south van ness development it is just one more of many, many market-rate development that will further drive up prices and cost of living and make that more importantly difficult for tenants to survive in the mission district we work with a lot of sro tenants in the mission area and in doing outreach for the past few years i've seen very high rate of diminished sro unit their illegally converted for tourists or flipped into micro
4:08 am
luxury units this is a serious problem as you may know there is hardly any options for low income people in san francisco i'd like to use an e of the hotel on 29 and mission that was a disaster tenants were getting illegal eviction flosses and the landlords were trying to push out the tenants this is a sunlight of the really expensive condo bus landlord see how much they can get for even the tiniest unit and what is happening people are becoming homeless, they're living on the streets and uscf not enough space in the shelters in the city this project will further drive up the gentrification in san francisco and what we need to do is highly
4:09 am
prioritize affordable housing not just affordable but low income housing for the community thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> can i have the overhead? please. sfgovtv please. yes tom gilberty how about heath equilibrium he versus the real estate developers profits environmental impact report need to concern be concerned with the people that live in the neighborhood so here we're go to start how about we start at the bottom and then go up the bottom 20 percent of this housing unit specific needs ellis acted affordable homes of veterans graduated foster kids
4:10 am
and seniors who out would their resources disabled section 8 veterans less of itself 20 percent how about the next 20 percent if you're a teacher or fire or muni employee city roads sewer muni driver how about dedicated for the 20 percent okay 4re9s go 5 percent thirty years san francisco resident 65 or older you can move from our home into 5 percent of those units let's go a little bit above that 15 percent 20-year resident in the local zip code if you lived in the local zip code for 20 years those are dedicated unit for you not pefshl but dedicated let's go up against the next 10
4:11 am
percent 50 year local zip codes 65 or older we're moving our seniors into some homes and from the local environment from the local zip codes and then the top thirty percent where do we get open market-rate let everybody move in that creates a motion in the neighborhood. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is julian i'm an organizer with the community group and the in the last 6 months we had at least three or four members who have been evicted in their homes from the mission bernal that is active in
4:12 am
the group and can no longer go to hearing like this those are people regularly attend the hearings and not going to be able to testify about the impact this project will have on their neighborhood so i think that is something we all want to keep in mind all people that have business to do in the city; right? and when we are talking about the environmental impact of those projects we have to think about the reverse commute; right? there is a theory that says you build dense that is better for the environment to the means more people on public transportation but people have to commute from concord and richmond to their jobs in the city it doesn't work out that way the second point i wanted to make about lennar itself now many supervisors backed proposition organization to allow lennar to exceed the limit
4:13 am
on office space built in the city with not promise of jobs or affordable housing in the community sea before they even made their honored their contract to build avenue in the hunters point community so my question to you to this board is if this whatnot the right time to hold lennar accountability what is you have a chance to do that here to weigh the real impacts on the human and environmental toll this has i urge you to do that thank you very much. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> my name is rick hall the mayor has reaffirmed that san francisco it is sanitary city for once i agree not only a
4:14 am
sanctuary we actively work to attract them who am i talking about the rick rich that displaced the poor in the middle the developers we invite to caterer to the rich to displace the poor and do middle i'm sure out of looked at the most egregious numbers we're offer condominium one and 50 percent of high income and barely 50 percent of our affordable target how can we choose to ignore awhile we are undermining the city by doing what we are doing question undermined the good pop policy of prop m by allowing san francisco to be the bedroom community for visitacion valley that displaces the rich in the middle and are you know and give more in the last election to lennar we will be a sanctuary city but
4:15 am
only for the undocumented rich. (laughter). >> we are
4:16 am
4:17 am
4:18 am
4:19 am
and over 4 hundred and 50 businesses 60 percent are not in the city i want to thank the i see 5 supervisors even though two of you guys are going out maybe a good chance to understand we need to have updated the stories they have i mean that is great you have union jobs they say they will provide by include the small businesses contractor we have we have every month we're lou
4:20 am
gehrig's disease two or three small businesses in the city in the mission district we need to have a nonprofit over here with a space that costs over $900 for a democrat trying to have people looking at entries no work they can't afford is to so we are that concludes my report. the rest of or colleagues over here you know we're each others that need to make more studies and support for small businesses and show support for the community thank you >> thank you, sir. >> next speaker, please. >> and i'm a lawyer and organizer for in 2015 to 2016 over 2000 evictions it took place in san francisco while we're not strong enough to stop the progress you are strong enough to say is that 25 percent
4:21 am
affordable housing is for the sufficient but displacement from projects like those the rent board has done a lot but there are holes in the protections and the hole here is that rent only the lower market-rate ones evicted the legislative aide what raise that apartment to the market-rate housing level places such as these incentivizes the landlord to create the weather smallest cause to go ahead and evict tenants and 80 bring groves of tenants to my organizations one hundred affordable housing is enforceable 25 percent is sufficient i ask you to reconsider thank you, thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors i'm andy blue live in the mission district
4:22 am
and i want to ask you what is u.s. bancorp reasonable about this appeal what is unreasonable about this appeal appeal before you today it is - is anyone in the room on another side of the aisle augural that the 50e6r789 is relevant to the mission in 2016 i understand lots of community input on the eastern neighborhoods plan none believes that plan is relevant and community predict when is happening to the mission more predicted 45 uber or google buses closing our streets the eastern neighborhoods plan called for 25 hundred units 2000 roughly unit by the beginning of this year we exceeded 25 hundred built and in the pipeline the eastern neighborhoods plan is not relevant don't us that has an excuse you have the power to force that luxury project to
4:23 am
face the scrutiny that unquestion by question deserves at that moment in the united states we desperately need sustainable communities for people of color and immigrants you can't turn our back on this community for lakeshore of all companies. >> (clapping.) >> what is unremarkable about this appeal i know that lennar has told you this appeal is unremarkable who will you listen to lakeshore a criminal company based in florida that devastated never been a friend of this city don't listen to lakeshore all our asked to do have this go back to face a eir we know everyone or every in the room knows this project will have on the community a reasonable thing to do more importantly the right thing to do.
4:24 am
>> (clapping.) >> thank you and before the next speaker speaks i'd like gentle remind the audience that applause or vocal express it prohibited in the chamber you're welcome to use our fingers. >> i'm bill a san francisco native i sign i heard the gentleman talking about the home he bought his home 40 years ago i was able to buy a house and my trade i was a local 85 san francisco tooermz today there's no tooermz that is revoted you can go around the city i can pout the embarcadero with the longshoremen and there was all teachers and reenforces was there here in behalf the
4:25 am
union workers of san francisco and i can remember you downtown get on a job site without a union here two gates and half the people will not be union i'll guarantee that it is a tough field to sit here and have mixed feeling about this i'm all for the unions you go down third street the castle steel and u.s. steel and three or four coffee companies all union jobs and so you know just don't do it anymore don't keep getting involved with all the good jobs of san francisco people thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening supervisors peter cultural action network yeah, so this the first major
4:26 am
project to come both the brand new cultural district not with the protections in place we're clear on the gentrification i don't hear people arguing this project is 75 percent luxury and 10 percent middle-class and 10 person working-class in a cultural district are hugely gentrifying he want to point out a couple of things to send this back for the full eir number one let's work back if 2018 a question the community if raise during the bryant street appeal when do we cap that mess 2018 we'll overrun with physical building the highest end of the eastern neighborhoods scope we'll physically pass it at this point what will you do build from 2018 to 2034 is that we're
4:27 am
heated but ceqa the reason ceqa says the probably foreseeable future and ask you whether to exempt you're not expected to without studying new mitigations on the updated plan that is highlighted we don't want to blow over the line we're at this hundred unit i want to tell you a curious story that is we're at 24 hundred unit when the community presented this to bryant street in july new numbers were realized we've added hundreds of units not pipeline earth have driven the number not from 24 to 27, one hundred that number is wrong we need to correct that number before we go forward. >> thank you.
4:28 am
>> next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is randy and i'm here to oppose the titanic mess i. think that the board has said it want to preserve and enhance the cultural district i'm not sure what that means if it looks like the western edition and the fillmore urban renewable i think you know we continually bring argument to the board what is happening in gentrification and how we can maybe have some kind of protective community protection after we saw the long list of proposes it is clear the board of supervisors can't agree to anything the voters had to make the choices i don't understand what how this is going to move forward tomorrow i have to go and support one of my
4:29 am
friends illegally evicted out of bayview i don't know what la happen and understand why there is not a community protection for friends investigation how this plan is acquired is doesn't make sense - what we're thinking about pushing for 33 percent ami 25 percent for working-class and 8 percent for middle-income lennar backed the prop o stuff to a lot of people like myself and now the entire country we are understanding this government didn't support people but protects wealth and property not us no human factor in any of
4:30 am
this we necessarily don't know we have the infrastructure friends - >> thank you >> next speaker, please. >> hello board. >> i brought a proxy to speak on my beef hello my name is bards hello yes, yes, yes it is true i'm up here to talk about many titanic mess those on south van ness is there a puppet in government that might as well be real first of all, i want to talk about the corporations that taken over the control of our national government and hope that didn't happen here the lennar's track record with the detailed pamphlets on the affordable
4:31 am
housing and the misleading reports on toxic waste should trike you to disallow any business with that corporation in the city of san francisco alone and on the cultural district issue first of all, it is a latino cultural district would you approve similar projects in chinatown i judge want to ask you i can't imagine a bunch of tech workers that can afford those spaces are the ones that are basically schedule to more often okay. would you approve that i don't think so anyway, the other issue the need for the eir first of all, from the beast and bryant the eastern neighborhoods plan is updateded outdated we've heard it you'll so this is such a massive project that demands and an eir
4:32 am
on its own every single development in the pipeline actually is requiring an eir as far as the loss of pdr space i have this where are the plumps that will build this project get their plumbing project if mcmillan plumbing is moved to san mateo thank you. >> (clapping.) >> are any other members of the public in support of appellant please step up otherwise mr. chair. >> if not go to the city departments on behalf of the planning department. >> ms. gibson. >> good afternoon supervisor peskin, supervisor president london breed and members of the board i'm listing ca is a acting environmental officer the question whether the project
4:33 am
anothers 115 south van ness avenue kwflgz for a plan expectation in corneas with the california environmental quality act and the ceqa guidelines i'll be making a few opening remarks before i i'm going to turn it over to linda who prepares the subject of the appeal i'll describe the project and highlighted two oishlgz raise in the appeal that ever rays on recent ceqa appeals before the board the project sight is three-quarters of an acre 33 square feet building that was occupied by mcmillan electric that moved to cesar chavez street the pivoting building b will be demolished the planning department issued a c pe on july the documented the review of the environmental effects and the construction of a 5 or 6 mixed
4:34 am
use building and the project will include one and 56 dwelling units 26 onsite housing units and include one thousand square feet of commercial retail use and 4 thousand trade shop space and parking for roughly 80 vehicles and one and 60 bikes that was subject to the interim controls the planning commission approved the project on august 11th with conditions one of the conditions requires the sponsor to work with the planning department to incorporate trade shop and other code compliant continent point quatro cultural district one of the appellants key arguments relates to the growth projections and the analysis in the eastern neighborhoods eir we heard much testimony on this today does the eastern neighborhoods uranium valid for the evaluation of subsequent
4:35 am
measurements accident e even though it didn't match it was rays on appeal of the 90 none 16th street eir heard on july 26th and the 200027 bryant appeal heard on the 16 the board denied the appeal realized on the eastern neighborhoods eir for subsequent projects as a refresher the planning department position on the eastern neighborhoods eir validity ate the growth boiled down to 3 points one no further environmental review environmental review is required for the rezoning and two the department has properly using the eastern neighborhood eir as the starting point in our environmental review for point development and 3 analyzing the impacts of subsequent projects we consider updated growth
4:36 am
forecast as part of cumulative impact analysis ceqa and the ceqa guidelines clearly establish that once a project is approved no further environmental review is needed unless the discretion approval that required we're not permit to reopen the eastern neighborhoods in the absence of a change to the eastern neighborhoods plan ceqa also mandated that project consistent with the density establish under the plan shall not be subject to additional environmental review only to examine where there are peculiar issues to the site we're not identified in the eir accordingly the planning department completed a project environmental review for the 115 south van ness project we termed that will in the result in the peculiar or site specific impact the analysis identified significant impacts pertaining
4:37 am
to noise and architecture local retail use from the eastern neighborhoods eir that applies to the project and second argument raised in the appeal gentrification and displacement constitute changed circumstances that were not anticipated to the eastern neighborhoods eir this issue is familiar to the board as it was raised on that is bryant appeal blah, blah, blah. >> it doesn't matter. >> (a gavel). >> go ahead. >> as we explained those are social and economics impact not subject to the ceqa review until to a physical impact upon did environment no evidence supporting in argument and as staff available today, we note that socioeconomic issues and
4:38 am
land issues and the planting is alledgedlys in the context outside of ceqa review with that, i'm going to turn it over to linda that will finish our presentation and note other planning department staff here including claudia that can take questions about the questions to address gentrification and displacement we also have chris who helped to prepare the c p examples and tipping i can't chang and who is the current planner for the project. >> ms. gibson to the arguments that some of the individuals who testified made with the changed transportation circumstances our response to that. >> as part of our analysis for subsequent projects in the eastern neighborhoods and area we looked at where there is any
4:39 am
project site specific and take into account updated growth forecast for transportation analysis we look at the most relevance available modeling that is included as sf champion model that look at the cumulative impacts in 2040 we just want that analysis. >> specifically to the piece of testimony by one individual that referenced an article recently in the newspaper about the number of tmc vehicles on the street have jumped to 45 thousand is that accounted for in the model. >> service providers like lyft and uber are we're not specifically evaluated in the eastern neighborhoods internal revenue because this is business model didn't exist at the time and at this point in our review of projects we have traffic
4:40 am
counts when conduct that take into account any service provider that is part of general traffic and it is when we looked this we don't find that is changes the overall conclusion with regards to the eir and the subsequent projects in a meaningful way it is something that are out there on the street but not re89 to an individual project impact doesn't have relevance. >> and requirement to the bakersfield argument the representative of the appellant made any specific responses to the bakersfield argument. >> the bakersfield case raised an issue that socioeconomic result in blight e blight that blight relating to businesses that have been displaced through
4:41 am
development can cause blight blight is an aesthetic impact it was amended through sb 43 to state that aesthetic impacts shall not be considered significant impacts under ceqa for projects that are transient ordinary and meet criteria we've elevate this project on 115 south van ness and noted it qualifies that's with the criteria and pursuant to ceqa we can't conclude those and that case is not relevant to the adequacy of this eir. >> and counselor burn you agree with that. >> deputy city attorney mirena burns. through the chair with regards to the legal analysis bakersfield case drew a link
4:42 am
within the socioeconomic ways because of project reviewed were the wal-mart style projects and there was some evidence in the record because of those projects being approved outside of the historic downtown corridor of bakersfield will draw people out of the city and cause vacancy and the court found evidence of blight a physical change in the environment related to things like litter and empty storefronts so here we'll need to have a cause link between the socioeconomic impacts and physical change to the environment. >> my question was specific to ms. geb sons representation relate to a transient orient
4:43 am
development the state legislature took away aesthetics impacts. >> from the project q. at the a transportation we're no longer allowed to look at physical impacts that's correct. >> supervisor campos this is not out of departments 10 minutes. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you, mr. chair i was going to ask the questions you asked before i follow-up i want to ask something separate bat discrepancy in the numbers address that through the chair or something that will be addressed by the next person. >> les can gibson we're not
4:44 am
clear on what the question is we've added the relevance of the projection to the analysis and the question of the validity of our reliance on the eastern neighborhoods eir we report and i can look for that the numbers report on what the latest estimates are of the amount of development within - we can provide those numbers but not roll call what the question was so if you can focus the question for me. >> we talked about some of the differences and the protection i want probation officer make sure what your response is to that and the impact on the eir analysis. >> why not look for that information and provide that answer after the presentation okay. >> and then going back to the issue of how the gentrification
4:45 am
and some of the other changes can lead to a physical impact what are the kinds of thing they'll make that to show substantial evidence of that. >> the evidence that would support that linkage is kind of something that our city attorney referenced in regards to the bakersfield case a linkage between the socioeconomic effects that relates to a effect that could be that it is a direct or indirect link that will exacerbate the socioeconomic effect with regards to the points that are raised regarding displacement the nature of the displacement concerns that are raised are ones of the
4:46 am
affordability, the economic, the income of the individuals raised and the fact in their being required to relocate outside of the city and that is in some concerns raised relating to traffic impacts the additional commuting that goes with each individuals need to do at the faster distances if there were evidence of that that needs to take into consideration and fully access what about the folks moving on in from areas they were living further way away and their commutes are shortened depend on where their jobs are that's the physical effect in terms of how it relate to vehicle trips and air quality, etc. at this point it is complex
4:47 am
and there's not been study that is - we're aware of that can give us subsequent evidence to support an analysis that supports that linkage in this case that we are responding to the information providing - provided to us we don't we're not generating that study ourselves. >> from our perspective they needed to provide that information? >> yes. but i'll say at the present time, the eastern neighborhoods eir we looked at this issue and recognize there is a relationship between where people live and the amount they drive there - the eastern neighborhoods rezoning will result in changes to where people live they acknowledge there would be issues that relate to gentrification and we acknowledge that and we noted that we don't have any evidence or any way of analyzing at the level this is needed to support
4:48 am
the ceqa analysis what the change physical changes could be related so we can't speculate at the level of ceqa we're looking at it again, a policy issue that is clear that those changes are concurring and long-range planning to address the concerns without the need of the sort of technical rigor we're required to do in ceqa addressed in a policy way more easily. >> is any of that evidence around what you discussed. >> no has not been. >> okay. i know detail be more questions make sure that you finish our presentation and more questions. >> linda now. >> thank you listing ca is a good afternoon. i'm from the planning department staff the remaining issues are under one
4:49 am
that conditions in the eastern neighborhoods and mission planned areas are changed such that new impacts are concurring in particular in regards to the in question what quatro criminality district and the cpe can't royal on the eastern neighborhoods that benefits they've not been adequately provide and 3 the project is not consistent with the policies of the general and eastern neighborhoods plan in regards to impacts on historic architectural resources projects specific analysis determine the existing building is not a ceqa historical resource and the project site is in the located women's network for a sustainable future a ceqa historical district the quatro cultural latino district not a historical district the area was he previously surveyed and it was identified other smaller district didn't identify the
4:50 am
latino cultural district district as a historical district under ceqa the appellant has no basis to support the project site is within ceqa historical district and the property a contributor to a historical district or that the project will have significant impact on a historical resource the i'd like to take the opportunity e planner is available to discuss the historic resources should you have any questions with that said, the support of cultural diversity is an important issue and claudia flores with the citywide planning division will address those issues should you have any questions the appellant further argues the claimed community benefits of the eastern neighborhoods plan have not been implemented or under professionalism as discussed in the october response of public
4:51 am
benefits was approved in 2008, as shown in attachment d to that response the public benefits have provided as development is approved and building permits are issued the appellant commends it didn't comply with the policies of general plan briefly the project has policies and regulations was evaluated in the cpe checklist and the determination the citywide planning division no conflict of sixth impacts not previously identified in the eastern neighborhoods eir will result that concludes my presentation. thank you. >> thank you very much and now we will have seeing no other names on the roster, for any questions at this time we'll ask the project sponsor to come forward up to 10 minutes.
4:52 am
>> thank you board president peter's with lennar multi families we are little the subsidy of lennar but i want to make it clear i've not had a chance to speak with we're a separate entity from lakeshore that is developing a shipyard so through we're proud of our our alleviation we speeds in urban apartment community so just to be clear we started in 2014 reaching out to the community and trying to understand the feasibility of this development proposal we also start with the proposal that was 12 percent affordable
4:53 am
and consistent with the current inclusionary housing ordinance it was a non-union development proposal i stand in front of you today very proud of what we've achieved over the last two years we are consistent with prop c as three percent inclusionary and we're one hundred union we have gone through newcomers technical studies we have participated obviously moratoriums and interim controls, gone through the prop c measure and we were granted a conditional use authorization in september so today, we ask you to respect the ceqa process we worked collaboratively with staff to insure that we dot all the i's and cross the t's and we were respectfully requesting you uphold the ceqa approval i'm going to turn it over to our
4:54 am
land use attorney alex to get into the study we prepared for staff. >> game-changer supervisor president london breed and supervisors law group to lennar i wanted to add to the planning department or the city attorney's office only to reiterate the appeal focuses only on the community plan exemption or cpe prepared by the planning department compares to ceqa as indicated in our letter to you substantial evidence exists to support the cpe and no evidence has been presented that indicates a new or more significant impact will be created not covered or analyzed by the eastern neighborhood eir studies numerous technical reports and studies prepared by exerts that support in determination the claims rays in the appeal on
4:55 am
affordability and displacement as no evidence staff they're not ceqa issues the studies and information provided by the appellants an gentrification fail to establish the link between those issues and this project and specifically where this project will as a result of the issues either individually or cumulatively create a physical impact on the environment the appellant has cited the bakersfield case but failed to meet the standard in the bakersfield case not provided the technical analysis that cause the link the project is in a latino cultural district it is not a historic resource under ceqa the mission district including the area that comprised the latino district has been surveyed and was found not a historic resource substantial evidence unfortunate
4:56 am
record and the builders city's file to support those conclusions as to the claims that 9 - and excuse me - - this is all bull. >> sir, thank you thank you, thank you thank you >> (clapping.) >> i realize that we're all passionate about this particular issue i'm asking each of you, you had our opportunity to speak we want to move forward and give others an punt opportunity to speak when that is done the board will make a decision in the meantime to move forward i'm going to ask the members of the public to please refrain from outbursts thank you very much. >> please continue. >> again as to appellant's claims the bakersfield stands
4:57 am
for the proposition that a special review is for the cultural district that is not true with the evidence before you bakersfield set the standard to link the social impacts to the physical impacts that standard has not been met a lay men's opinion is not enough and the professional opinion has not been priority give you a little bit of background the project is consistent with the latino cultural district it creates housing and that is a big issue at the planning commission and one that the project as peter not working hard 3 trade shops and a new corner retail and commented to working with the district 8 sfroefz to identify and make sure the use of those spaces meets the need and using
4:58 am
100 percent union labor the project as allowed mcmillan a local contractor to relocate one mile down the street and hire 25 new employees high pagan jobs and finally the project will provide three percent affordable housing in compliance with voter prop c the only pipeline project providing this percentage of onsite affordable housing in closing the issue in consideration whether the cpe prepared it legally okay. the standard is whether substantial evidence exists in the record to prepare a cpe as noted by staff and included in the administrative record there is subsequent record to support that finding the legal support has been met no further appeal is needed this comes before the board and in each case the ceqa document is upheld the staff did
4:59 am
a tremendous job in making sure all projects comply with ceqa and presenting a requiring technical studies to make sure no in your impacts exist and substantial evidence in the record to support their finding this appeal is no different than those other cases there is nothing unique about this project or this appeal that warrants a different detector it is location in the latino cultural dpishth display change the requirements under bakers fields that has not been met nothing indicates the city's determination is wrong or not support by substantial evidence news i thus, the dwp e cpe should be upheld the issues are policy issues not ceqa issues we respectfully request you follow staff's recommendation and deny the appeal and uphold this.
5:00 am
>> at this time i just want to let members of the audience i know a number of you are here also for the joint meeting between the san francisco board of supervisors and the police commission we still need time to finish up this hearing that had been starting a little bit late at this time i will open up to public commenters members of the public to speak in opposition of the appeal please line up to your right here and you have up to 2 minutes. >> first speaker. >> good afternoon members of
5:01 am
the board i'm greg weber a board members of consortium of over one member's and a community activist in the inner mission i had the inner mission i head it renters with property owners who live in the vicinity of this development we live on shot well 26 south van ness and we're a group of latinos, asians all diversity represented in the mission we support the lennar project as a member of the community over the past year we have met that lennar numerous times to discuss the dine say architecture the build out of this development lennar is a model developer for the mission they been consistent in their compliance with the zoning rules they've - they're in inclines
5:02 am
compliance with prop c with supervisor peskin trying period of time affordable didn't have to therapy grandfathered florida the 25 percent rule lennar is exemplar meeting and working with the community and most of all steadfast against paying off any hush money and extortion and any kind of funds to nonprofit organizations who in a typical manner of any development san francisco exploits the developer i urge you to get the project going for affordable and market-rate thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hello, i'm steve a
5:03 am
residence of the mission in supervisor campos district thank you him for working with lennar and trying to workout the best solution a clear legal issue the city and lennar went through with a lot of detail question have a community issue that's why we're all here i'm in support of development and the option to the appeal we need more housing this will provide more housing for me about as simple as that and welcome 39 more units in the mission you can go against high housing prices or against development but not against both. >> 42 thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm brooke i'm here to ask you to uphold the 1515 development the planning
5:04 am
department approved this with a 6 vote the board of supervisors respect the determination this is a legal issue the appeal is quatro late ditch efforts to stop a project that many in the neighborhood many don't oppose and many support that the group was in the able to secure the signatures necessarily to appeal the cu now their appealing the ceqa fvmdz 1515 south van ness will benefit the neighborhood by adding 25 percent housing units the planning department considered the 1515 development and unanimously approves the ceqa and the board should uphold this thank you. >> thank you next speaker, please hi, my name is i live half a block from the site i want the building to move forward as is the architects have meet numerous time with the
5:05 am
neighbors living close by and made concession they've followed the laws and a lot of work gone into this project. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors my name is dante johnson thank you for allowing me to speak against the appeal on 115 advantageous i'm a native from san francisco and a journey man carpenter and local excuse me - carpenters local 22 and recently pled the apprenticeship and equipped with the valuable skills to help me as a carpenter 24 gets the hands on training that allowed me to complete any apprenticeship throughout my apprenticeship i commuted to find work and been anticipating
5:06 am
working on this project since what july 2014 the development this development will be in the city that i live in allows me to work in my backyard and gives us an opportunity to give back to my community to spend money you know this appeal will not only delay the work in san francisco that will delay going to get built regardless so why delay it basically i mean, that's my stand on it. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors my name is carlos duran a representative for august 14, 2006, i represent approximately 35 carpenters in northern california close to 4 thousand of those carpenters are members
5:07 am
of local 22 some of the members are here today, we strongly urge the board of supervisors to deny the appeal brought to you today for the purpose proposed project on 115 south van ness for the following reasons for the most part in project has been determined to be exempt in my environmental review and was proved on august 11th with the exemption second this project fills the needs for housing not only in the mission district but in san francisco this development will create one and 57 units 39 or affordable the development team volunteers 25 percent of the total units to need more affordable housing which emphasized in the eastern neighborhoods plan to our acknowledge this is the first and only project that complies with prop c which was
5:08 am
passed its by san francisco voters finally this project has committed to using one hundred union labor this creates local jobs for san franciscans that will creates a gateway for young people skills for lifelong skills in the apprenticeship plan that is one step in the right direction to a complete neighborhood that brings a balance of jobs and hours to the eastern neighborhoods we urge the board to deny the appeal that will delay the jobs that san franciscans want thank you for your time and allowing me to speak gossips begins that appeal. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> larry local 38 and the president of the building trades council i rise against the appeal for 1515 south van ness myself and the san francisco building trades council feel the
5:09 am
eir was adequate, second on a 6 unanimous vote it is volunteer las vegas moving up from 12 percent the first and only project we're aware of that is in compliance with prop c it is one hundred union and bring pension and apprenticeships lennar multi family did everything they said as far as i'm concerned, and the building trades you'll hear from no basis for the ceqa appeal and the planning commission approval should be upheld thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors
5:10 am
my name is tony rodriquez a local 43 a resident of san francisco i was at the planning commission when this project was heard and approved and then later on, i heard it was appealed at this time the state was talking about buy right and started reading about that and then the california is 20 years behind in building units housing i don't know exactly where san francisco is i went to another function they stated 6 to 8 jobs are created and those jobs only one housing unit that is provided that's in the future of san francisco so you know we've got to project that was approved by the san francisco housing action coalition i'm part of and approved by the planning commission it is a responsible project you know people keep talking about displacement you don't know beyond i go by this
5:11 am
building i live in bernal heights this is empty i bought a home no bernal heights thirty years ago it is changed everyone to talks about being against changd change i've been in the city of 5 years today is my birthday the city changes constantly and to make sure it is changed in a responsible way i ask you to approve the project and we're against the appeal thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon danny sheet metal workers local 104 often on behalf of at many men and women we too rise against the appeal of that planning exemption i echo what my two brothers before me said about the
5:12 am
economic impacts and what did that mean we talk about union jobs and apprenticeship opportunities what that means the young men and women and latino men and women that was talked about earlier by a lot of the people before us will have criteria opportunity in the penn e apprenticeship programs that will sustain them and returning the united states military veterans will are career pathway in the apprenticeship programs through the helmets to hard hats program we have partnered with the department of defense and the va that's what that means we feel that the planning department staff did an adequate study on the eir we feel that the conditions in the mission still are within the perimeters of eastern neighborhood plan and - so we ask that the community planning exemption be firmed and the appeal denied.
5:13 am
>> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> you guys - >> i'm going to ask members of the public to refrain from the out bursts please thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hello my name is lucy i live half block away from the proposed project i support in project and i'm - because this project provides more housing and affordable housing and high hope more available housing in san francisco than they'll be more explosive pricing and people can afford living in san francisco and because of more availability and the only thing we can embrace is changes can't avoid we can't stay in the one phase and try to keep that that way we have to embrace changes and hope
5:14 am
the supervisors will approve this project. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi my name is vincent a renter in the mission and i want to say something that will be unpopularity i don't think buildings cause gentrification and people people do the only thing to stem the tide of gentrification build where rich people do i muscled out guys for basement work i would i live in an lennar development if we don't build unit we can what will happen they'll compete with the stock for middle-income and who will win people with more money like what do we get for not building 10 years in the
5:15 am
mission only one way outburst not to build housing we have to best estimate that's thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> easily a commenter said you're bringing a stranger into your neighborhood as if it was self-evidence that was bad if everyone can see that is bad that disturbed 33 me i've been disturbed and in san francisco of all places not take for granted bringing strangers into the neighborhood is a bad thing they know a lot about who will live this this is mysterious the mission moratorium report that the controller's office prepared last year says the new buildings
5:16 am
84 percent of residents are people that live in san francisco so the idea that - from the building was filled with newcomers so what in trumps american we were sdrushdz we don't like it when you come to the board of supervisors and city saying you don't want different people in the neighborhood you're exactly the same as americans across the country that don't want immigrants it is the exact the same attitude so be the kind of person to have new people into the neighborhood or the kind of people want to keep people like you out of neighborhood i want to build more housing and people available to live here and a wide diversity of people i'm not going to pretend i know who will live in the building. >> for members of the public i realize there are a lot of
5:17 am
passionate people but let's get through that and i'll appreciate if you refrain from the out burst thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> game-changer supervisors i'm jose i'm with the san francisco electrical workers we support this and against the appeal that will bring work for the apprenticeships that will in the city and make a living thank you very much. >> thank you next speaker, please corey smith from the housing action coalitions and deny the appeal today, this project will bring one and 56 homes for the families 39 of them permanently affordable our understanding this is is compatible with no public money the largest affordable housing onsite percentage wise in the history of san francisco some details of the project transient
5:18 am
ordinary we appreciate the .5 parking radio and the biking parking ratio did a lot of transforming over a period of time one of the few projects that came to the project review team twice specifically point out the ground floor retail use last week, we passed its proposition x in the spirit the project sponsor has committed to 50 percent of - sorry 50 percent yeah rent and cost for the ground floor for local artists and trade shops and august the planning commission unanimously approved this project and i ask you to do the same i want to the hope on sonja's comment our city made comments about being an sanctuary city and welcoming to the to make sure we open our
5:19 am
arms is putting shovels in the ground i sincerely parking spaces you pass the project. >> good evening supervisors my name is patrick mcmillan i'm sorry i'm nervous i'm the ceo of medical care million miguel for the last 50 years caregiver that corner with respect to the latino cultural district wherewith where were you guys when wells fargo was calling for notes in the noticing pardon me. >> sir direct our comments to the board and not members of the public. >> okay anyways the person was connie and together we got it get rid of the graffiti and help
5:20 am
with the homeless, dealt with the day labors all in a compassionate and good way for the neighborhood we well my father and mother bought the building and sold it we moved down the street to the caesar chavez where we build a state of the art facility out of a 20th century building - when i struck this deal with lakeshore they - at a time in proposition i lennar could with walked away from the deal he extended the money on the new building they stated in they especially\walk away from the deal so i would like to speak to the character of lakeshore they're a great thing for the city. >> thank you.
5:21 am
>> next speaker, please. >> and any more members of the public that want to speak please line up to our right. >> good afternoon, supervisors i'm xavier with the local local 261 i have an obligation for the representatives we represent over 5 thousand one of the comments that i want to mention is about the community we represent you know our members live in the area also, we represent community and i want to just to be clear a topic here and i don't mean to offending everybody respect every single person you know as a building trade i'm here to support them the brothers and carpenters and plumps and sheet metal workers so i support this project and move forward thank
5:22 am
you. >> thank you and just to be clear this is for anyone to speak who is actually opposed to the appeal. >> next speaker, please. >> okay seeing members of the public that want to speak in opposition to the appeal tierpt public comment is closed. >> all right. now the appellant will have up to 3 minutes for a rebuttal >> thank you so much to say in so little time the questions were what is the impact of the cumulative emphatic that market-rate development this and all the other ones on the latino cultural district i think we've provided substantial evidence that will be negative that puts
5:23 am
businesses nonprofits and resident at risk who are already at risk and the second question was what do we do to mitigate we've not gotten answers to those answers in fact, not in the eastern neighborhoods plan that those questions were asked because the latino cultural district was not in existence contaminate so the impacts couldn't have been studied and no subsequent evidence to support this conclude they didn't study it our job is to provide substantial evidence in a fair argument can be made that it should have been studied and substantial evidence consists of facts and raefshl assumptions predicted on facts
5:24 am
and can include expert opinion not the technical friends analysis suggested by the project sponsor if doesn't puts the planning department on notice this should be studied we've provided more than enough evidence that that requirement has been met again due to shortage of time i'll point you to pages 7 and 8 of my brief the district is also historical in nature as i said earlier not a historical designation in order to have this characteristic and when the eastern neighborhoods eir did it's search to see if they're looking for historical assets the latino cultural district was not in existence how could they have found it as a secret
5:25 am
geological area of historical interest and finally there was the issue on bakersfield about aesthetics i've read that case probably half a dozen times and the project i didn't and read the subsequent cases not references to aesthetics by green house gas emissions and the sdrupgs in the community and so forth clearly aesthetics is an issue but not the only issue that bakersfield touches on and finally, the issue of consistency with the area plan that was supposed to provide affordable housing and much larger numbers than provided under the eastern neighborhoods plan supposed to respected the diversity of our communities. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> okay. this hearing has been held and is now filed this item is in the hands of
5:26 am
board. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you very much madam president and you know, i think you think i've been on the board of supervisors 8 years and you never know how those things will go until you come to the these chambers and go through the process and let me say i came in into that repeating thinking that i was going to vote a certain way i've said this before i'll say this again that is very challenging to deal with the issues of gentrification with the issue of the displacement and the context of a ceqa appeal and i want to say this to the appellant and to the community
5:27 am
because i think that has to be said i say this is as someone that has been fighting stloondz alongside we have to do a better job of making the legal arguments around ceqa we have to and i actually think that that point that was made by the planning department staff is really important the issue of substantial evidence on physical impacts but i also believe though that it is not on the appellants he actually think that is on the city and one of the things i'll ask of the planning department and i know this is not probably the place to make an official request will follow-up after this i do want to have an analysis
5:28 am
done by the planning department and will do it in writing to make that official that actively looks at how gentrification impact physically the environment potentially i think that we need that analysis done i don't know if this is something that could be done by an outdoor city without the support and help the city i'll ask that. >> with that said, i came into in hearing thinking i'll vote against the appeal but for those of you who wondered in public comment makes a difference this public comment changed minds this is a perfect illustration it does and specifically want to thank the
5:29 am
representative from behavior for helping to change my mind and her comments about donald trump and her comments about nativeism i actually think on the eir i'm not happy about the comments by the appellants but the thing about those appeals we have the ability as a board to use our own independent judgment and assessment here i believe what is different about bryant the bryant street project is the latino cultural district i came into this thinking that case was not made by the representative from behaviarf helped to - the
5:30 am
person that referenced the latinos in gang activity in the past thank you for kind of shedding light on this issue for me because i do believe enough questions have been raised by the individualized of the record notwithstanding about the questions about the appeal to call for an analysis by the city i think we do need to go back and do further environmental review that looks of the at the issue the displacement beyond that in the legal analysis it is what it is we'll make that - i
5:31 am
want no part whatsoever in the age of donald trump with the kind of hateful ignorant language and rhetoric that was presented by those two individuals and i'm willing to think sued and taken to court for saying that bring that on but if there is a time to stand by do the right thing that is today and i also want to send the message to the other projects that are coming down the pipeline for the impact the latino cultural district let that be a message how you should precede because if there is a perfect example how node not to
5:32 am
proceed with that, colleagues as a district 9 supervisor like to make a motion to move forward item 37 and 38 and with respect to item 38 to include in the motion faster analysis is needed on the environmental impact of displacement and gentrification on this community and specifically the latino cultural district and table item 36. >> okay supervisor campos has made a motion seconded by supervisor avalos supervisor avalos. >> thank you i don't know if i can be agree eloquent as supervisor campos i felt that for the past 8 years i've never ever uttered from my seats from public comment but found the
5:33 am
comments are so offends from one individual talking about. >> (clapping.) >> where we were in the noticing and in the noticing i was working in the community and trying to - at the time in the 90s two years ago october 1996 the chronicle was trying to over exercise the gang district and painted the cloth of young people red and make them pure like gang members that's where i was in the 90s fighting that crap to think we have a project before us that is defend with such ignorance is beyond the pail we have a system nationally that
5:34 am
was repudiated in the election of donald trump but we know where the country is blue that system is thriving that system actually allows for the type of development that is happening in san francisco that leads to wealth concentrating more and more to the wealthy and the people public school low income working-class getting the displaced and not getting fair share people saw the economic system and the politicians that support the system are do not support working people to think that only happens in the red states or red counties is a fallacy happens in san francisco i feel look the board of supervisors especially the progressive wing that is concerned has been fighting for that forever i'm totally happy to support the motion made by supervisor campos to uphold the appeal on this project.
5:35 am
>> thank you supervisor avalos supervisor mar. >> thank you, madam chair. >> sir you're out of order. >> i'm going to miss 20 these two guys sitting across i'm going to join with any comrades in supporting the appeal thank you so much to the artists that have come out the artists and the latino community and organizers and activists the small business leaders and others for giving us the political context of what is happening in the mission district and other advanced gentrification advanced displacement neighborhood we also know that many other neighborhoods are coming next as well i want to say that i did meet with the developer and i wanted to thank lennar multi family and others i think that is not necessarily about this project
5:36 am
it is a bigger political context that is being discussed but wanted to say that 100 percent union labor the 6 sfmade maker spaces moving from the grandfathered percentages to the much higher inclusionary to the 15 percent but 10 percent affordable goal is commendable but i'll standby with any colleagues and the community that have said the 1y508 eastern neighborhoods eir is way updated and not seem there is any plan in place to update the board eir i think that cumulative impacts has raised by mr. weaver and others are critical for us to been not necessarily looking at it project by project but the city needs a much better plan when the planning department
5:37 am
staff said we're trying to address the displacement and the socioeconomic impacts in other ways i've not seen enough to show me that's a serious effort a serious displacement in the mission district and other places i want to cite not only miriam and karen berkley for innovation and the urban displacement numbers but also the budget and analyst that was commissioned by supervisor campos the mission district is rapidly gunmen phil ginsberg the push out of latinos and seniors and artists and disabled people is to rapid i'll give the numbers from the b l a 60 percent of the population was latino in 20002015 dropping
5:38 am
below 50 percent and 2025 dropping half and the unable of wealthy people doubling with all due respect to the wealthy people that spoke in favor the project the families and others that are displaced rapidly but the wealthy is doubling to over 26 percent in 2025 the number is reduced in half and 21st percent to 11 percent in 2025 a serious situation soifshg and families for the demographics in the mission i feel strongly as people talk about newcomers that has to be based on respect for latino cultural dictate and a history that has been developed from irish to latino immigrants and has to be based on respect of that cultural heritage for the latino considerate that is
5:39 am
an important part of san francisco blood and i wanted to thank all the people to defend the mission district and really stand up for a city that has a soul i'll be voting in support of motion by supervisor campos. >> thank you supervisor peskin. >> (clapping.) >> thank you madam president i want to society myself with the comments made by the maker of the motion but colleagues given the grave outlet of the situation i want to make a motion to allow the project sponsor that attempted to speak to address this body for not to exceed 2 minutes if not objection like to make that motion. >> supervisor i'm sorry supervisor campos is there any objection. >> without objection we'll lie you to answer questions supervisor peskin? and are you
5:40 am
asking questions. >> no, i want to give him the opportunity to address that body as the project sponsor. >> i've done i object. >> we'll have to take a vote. >> i withdraw my motion. >> okay supervisor avalos object and supervisor peskin withdrew his motion. >> okay. >> supervisor cowen. >> thank you thank you. good evening and thank you for weighing in on this weighty policy that is an interesting conundrum we're in the same situation time and time georgia again, i've building that a compelling argument was made and we should begin to direct staff to begin to incorporate displacement and i also think in addition to incorporating the analysis of the displacement of what a
5:41 am
project will have on a neighborhood we should be look atth total cumulative impact of projects that are in the pipeline and this is a particular problem we continue to have in district 10 specifically in potrero hill the cumulative impact we're approving projects individually but not paying attention to the environment the entire landscape those projects will be coming alive in i think that we are becoming out of balance and it is important for us to be in sync so today you know the conversation is also about really brewing for . >> couple of years we need a sea change and be moving in a different direction if the development shouldn't be displacing people but development should be widening the intent and bringing in and welcoming people into san
5:42 am
francisco and certainly i've said many times before the board in the land use committee that i believe we need to reexamine and make tweaks to the eastern neighborhoods area plan so supervisor campos i will are supporting you today. >> (clapping.) >> thank you supervisor campos. >> thank you. >> again i'll ask the members of the audience please refrain from vocal expression. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you very much i want to be clear in part of the motion that i presented as planning does it's analysis going forward that you know the basis behind the motion and the look the focus on displacement is the connection between displacement and the physical effects on the environment and that is what was mentioned not hearing that was
5:43 am
traffic, air quality and other physical impacts i think that is important for that to be considered in the analysis and, of course, what you it unique about this project the first project that is taking place that can have an impact on the latino cultural district want to make sure that is understood relative to the motion. >> thank you supervisor cowen. >> thank you i know we're talking in context of a ceqa appeal a clunky tool we're trying to use to bring about this detail of change supervisor campos with your willing to amend our motion i want to see the total cumulative impacts of projects i'd like to see that also analyzed. >> yes. yes. >> thank you. >> okay
5:44 am
seeing no other names on the roster, supervisor campos has made a motion to approve items 37 and 38 with proposed amendments madam clerk take the amendments separately. >> no madam president and and tackle item 36 and seeing no other names on the roster, madam clerk madam clerk, please call the roll. >> supervisor kim supervisor mar supervisor peskin supervisor tang supervisor avalos supervisor breed supervisor campos supervisor cowen supervisor farrell there are 9 i's and. >> (clapping.) >> and okay. the appeal is approved >> (clapping.) >> okay with that, we'll take a 10 minute recess and reconvene
5:45 am
with the
5:46 am
5:47 am
5:48 am
5:49 am
5:50 am
5:51 am
5:52 am
5:53 am
5:54 am
5:55 am
5:56 am
5:57 am
5:58 am
5:59 am
6:00 am
6:01 am
6:02 am
6:03 am
6:04 am
6:05 am
6:06 am
6:07 am
6:08 am
6:09 am
6:10 am
6:11 am
6:12 am
6:13 am
6:14 am
6:15 am
6:16 am
6:17 am
6:18 am
6:19 am
6:20 am
6:21 am
6:22 am
6:23 am
6:24 am
6:25 am
6:26 am
6:27 am
6:28 am
6:29 am
6:30 am

14 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on